GIFT    OF 
JANE  K.SATHER 


AMERICAN  IDEALS 


EDITED  BY 

NORMAN  FOERSTER 

Associate  Professor  of  English 
AND 

W.  W.  PIERSON,  JR. 

Assistant  Professor  of  History  in  the 
University  of  North  Carolina 


BOSTON  NEW  YORK  CHICAGO 

HOUGHTON   MIFFLIN  COMPANY 

Cte  fitoertfbe  pre#  Cambridge 


j  .rfc^' 


COPYRIGHT,   1917,   BY   NORMAN   FOMSTBR   AND   W.    W.    PIKRSON,  JR. 
ALL   RIGHTS   RESERVED 


The  selections  in  this  book  are  used  by  permission 
<?/,  and  special  arrangement  with,  their  proprietors. 


CAMORIDGB  .  MASSACHUSETTS 
V    .    S    .    A 


PREFACE 

"  BEFORE  our  war  we  were  to  Europe  but  a  huge  mob  of 
adventurers  and  shopkeepers.  Leigh  Hunt  expressed  it  well 
enough  when  he  said  that  he  could  never  think  of  America 
without  seeing  a  gigantic  counter  stretched  all  along  the 
seaboard." 

It  is  the  Civil  War  that  James  Russell  Lowell  referred  to 
in  this  passage;  it  is  the  Civil  War  that  revealed  once  more, 
as  the  War  of  Independence  had  also  revealed,  the  idealism 
of  those  remote  forbears  of  ours  who  came  to  this  continent 
"not  to  seek  gold,  but  God."  But  after  the  Civil  War,  our 
material  prosperity  grew  apace,  until  our  ideals  seemed 
gradually  to  become  dimmer  and,  in  the  view  of  many  ob 
servers,  both  foreign  and  American,  faded  away  altogether. 
And  now,  having  accepted  our  responsibilities  in  world  affairs, 
we  believe  that  we  shall  reveal  once  again  some  of  the  ideals 
we  have  cherished  in  the  past  and  some  of  the  new  ideals 
that  the  age  calls  for. 

It  is  the  function  of  this  little  book  to  bring  together  cer 
tain  essays,  addresses,  and  state  papers  that  express,  from 
the  point  of  view  of  American  statesmen  and  men  of  letters, 
these  ideals,  past  and  present.  A  final  chapter  of  "Foreign 
Opinion  of  the  United  States"  regards  a  few  of  the  same 
subjects  from  an  interestingly  different  angle. 

One  who  reads  these  utterances  reflectively  will  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  they  exhibit  a  marked  nobility  of  will 
and  mind.  For  that  the  reader  was  amply  prepared.  But 
at  the  same  time  one  cannot  but  confess  that  these  expres 
sions  of  the  ideals  that  have  guided  us  in  the  past  and  are 
animating  our  action  in  the  present  are  somewhat  deficient 


iv  PREFACE 

in  clarity  of  purpose.  Emerson  said  that  "America  is  an 
other  word  for  Opportunity,"  and  the  phrase  has  often  been 
repeated  —  but  who  inquires,  "Opportunity  for  what?" 
There  is  another  sentence  of  Emerson's  that  is  even  more 
Reserving  of  repetition:  "It  is  not  free  institutions,  it  is  not 
It  republic,  it  is  not  a  democracy,  that  is  the  end,  —  no,  but 
only  the  means."  If  Emerson  is  right,  what  is  the  end  — 
what,  at  bottom,  has  the  American  tradition  as  its  goal? 
This  question  cannot  be  answered  now;  but  a  more  intimate 
knowledge  of  our  professed  ideals  and  policies,  our  spiritual 
and  political  tendencies,  will  perhaps  bring  us  to  an  earlier 
answer  than  we  should  otherwise  attain. 

It  need  scarcely  be  said  that,  in  collecting  these  expres 
sions  of  our  national  and  international  consciousness,  the 
editors  have  been  obliged  to  omit,  from  so  small  a  book, 
many  significant  utterances.  Perhaps  it  likewise  goes  without 
saying  that  in  arranging  the  selections  under  certain  topics, 
the  editors  have  sometimes  assigned  positions  arbitrarily. 
These  defects  will  not  be  serious  so  long  as  the  total  im 
pression  is  reasonably  near  the  truth.  In  the  choice  of 
matter  to  be  included,  a  number  of  friends  have  generously 
assisted,  particularly  J.  G.  de  Roulhac  Hamilton,  Professor 
of  History,  and  James  H.  Hanford,  Associate  Professor  of 
English,  both  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina.  Pro 
fessor  Hanford  not  only  cooperated  with  the  editors  in 
drawing  up  the  plan  of  the  book,  but  also  read  the  whole 

corpus  of  proof-sheets. 

N.  F. 

W.  W.  P.,  Jr. 

August.  1917. 


CONTENTS 

I.  LIBERTY  AND  UNION 

^Liberty  Speech Patrick  Henry 3 

*^The  Declaration  of  Independence Thomas  Jefferson  .  ,  7 

"^The  Adoption  of  the  Declaration  of 

Independence Daniel  Webster § 

H.  STATE  AND  NATION 

*The  Nature  of  the  Union Daniel  Webster 17 

The  Nature  of  the  Union John  C.  Calhoun ...  27 

Second  Inaugural  Address Abraham  Lincoln  , .  45 

How  to  Preserve  the  Local  Self-Gov- 

ernmeut  of  the  States Elihu  Root 48 

.  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

DEFINITION  AND  ILLUSTRATION 

Tirst  Inaugural  Address Thomas  Jefferson  . .     59 

Gettysburg  Address Abraham  Lincoln. . .     65 

Abraham  Lincoln R.  W.  Emerson  ....     66 

Contributions  of  the  West  to  American 

Democracy F.  J.  Turner 72 

The  Present  Crisis J.  R.  Lowell 98 

Rise,  O  Days,  from  Your  Fathomless 

Deeps Walt  Whitman 104 

Thou  Mother  with  Thy  Equal  Brood.  Walt  Whitman 107 

A  Charter  of  Democracy Theodore  Roosevelt  .  114 

EDUCATION 

The  American  Scholar R.  W.  Emerson  ....  133 

Democracy  in  Education P.  P.  Claxton 156 

THE  SUPREME  TEST 

Can  Democracy  be  Organized? Edwin  A.  Alderman  158 

Conscription  Proclamation Woodrow  Wilson.  . .   175 

Americanism  and  the  Foreign-Born. . .  .  Woodrow  Wilson.  . .   178 


vi  CONTENTS 

IV.  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

IniL\L  OF  ISOLATION 

Vlounsel  on  Alliances George  Washington  .  185 

IDEAL  OF  INTER-AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION 

The  Monroe  Doctrine James  Monroe 190 

The  Emancipation  of  South  America.  .Henry  Clay 194 

Pan- Americanism Robert  Lansing 200 

IDEAL  OF  INTERNATIONAL  ASSOCIATION 

A  League  to  Enforce  Peace A.  Lawrence  Lowell.   207 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  and  the  Program 

of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace George  G.  Wilson.  .  .   224 

The  Conditions  of  Peace Woodrow  Wilson  ...   233 

War  for  Democracy  and  Peace Woodrow  Wrilson. . .  242 

V.  FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

The  Sovereignty  of  the  People Alexis  de  Tocqueiille  257 

General  Tendency  of  the  Laws Alexis  de  Tocquerille  261 

The  Activity  of  the  Body  Politic Alexis  de  Tocquemlle  267 

The  German  and  the  American  Temper.  Kuno  Francke 273 

The  "  Divine  Average  " G.  Lowes  Dickinson  282 

The  Frame  of  National  Government.  .  .James  Bryce 285 

Criticism  of  the  Federal  System James  Bryce 301 

Merits  of  the  Federal  System James  Bryce 312 

The  Cooperation  of  English-Speaking 

Peoples Arthur  J.  Balfour  . .  322 


AMERICAN  IDEALS 

I 
LIBERTY  AND  UNION 


OUR  FIRST  CENTURY1 
GEORGE  EDWARD  WOODBERRY 

IT  cannot  be  that  men  who  are  the  seed 

Of  Washington  should  miss  fame's  true  applause; 

Franklin  did  plan  us;  Marshall  gave  us  laws; 

And  slow  the  broad  scroll  grew  a  people's  creed  — 

Union  and  Liberty!  then  at  our  need, 

Time's  challenge  coming,  Lincoln  gave  it  pause, 

Upheld  the  double  pillars  of  the  cause, 

And  dying  left  them  whole  —  our  crowning  deed. 

Such  was  the  fathering  race  that  made  all  fast, 

Who  founded  us,  and  spread  from  sea  to  sea 

A  thousand  leagues  the  zone  of  liberty, 

And  built  for  man  this  refuge  from  his  past, 

Unkinged,  unchurched,  unsoldiered;  shamed  were  we, 

Failing  the  stature  that  such  sires  forecast! 

i  From  Poems,  1903.    Reprinted  through  the  generous  permission  of  The  Macmillan 
Company. 


AMEKICAN  IDEALS 

LIBERTY  SPEECH^ 

PATRICK  HENRY 

MR.  PRESIDENT:  No  man  thinks  more  highly  than  I  do 
of  the  patriotism,  as  well  as  abilities,  of  the  very  worthy 
gentlemen  who  have  just  addressed  the  House.  But  differ 
ent  men  often  see  the  same  subject  in  different  lights;  and, 
therefore,  I  hope  that  it  will  not  be  thought  disrespectful 
to  those  gentlemen,  if,  entertaining  as  I  do,  opinions  of  a 
character  very  opposite  to  theirs,  I  shall  speak  forth  my 
sentiments  freely  and  without  reserve.  This  is  no  time  for 
ceremony.  The  question  before  the  House  is  one  of  awful 
moment  to  this  country.  For  my  own  part  I  consider  it  as 
nothing  less  than  a  question  of  freedom  or  slavery;  and  in 
proportion  to  the  magnitude  of  the  subject  ought  to  be  the 
freedom*  of  the  debate.  It  is  only  in  this  way  that  we  can 
hope  to  arrive  at  a  truth,  and  fulfill  the  great  responsibility 
which  we  hold  to  God  and  our  country.  Should  I  keep  back 
my  opinion  at  such  a  time,  through  fear  of  giving  offense, 
I  should  consider  myself  as  guilty  of  treason  toward  my 
country,  and  of  an  act  of  disloyalty  toward  the  Majesty  of 
Heaven,  which  I  revere  above  all  earthly  kings. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  natural  to  man  to  indulge  in  the  illu 
sions  of  hope.  We  are  apt  to  shut  our  eyes  against  a  painful 
truth,  and  listen  to  the  song  of  that  siren,  till  she  transforms 
us  into  beasts.  Is  this  the  part  of  wise  men,  engaged  in  a 

1  The  speech  delivered  before  the  Virginia  Convention  of  Delegates, 
March  23,  1775. 


4  LIBERTY  AND   UNION 

great  and  arduous  struggle  for  liberty?  Are  we  disposed  to 
be  of  the  number  of  those  who,  having  eyes,  see  not,  and 
having  ears,  hear  not,  the  things  which  so  nearly  concern 
their  temporal  salvation?  For  my  part,  whatever  anguish 
of  spirit  it  may  cost,  I  am  willing  to  know  the  whole  truth; 
to  know  the  worst  and  to  provide  for  it. 

I  have  but  one  lamp  by  which  my  feet  are  guided;  and 
that  is  the  lamp  of  experience.  I  know  of  no  way  of  judging 
the  future  but  by  the  past.  And  judging  by  the  past,  I  wish 
to  know  what  there  has  been  in  the  conduct  of  the  British 
ministry  for  the  last  ten  years  to  justify  those  hopes  with 
which  gentlemen  have  been  pleased  to  solace  themselves 
and  the  House?  Is  it  that  insidious  smile  with  which  our 
petition  has  been  lately  received?  Trust  it  not,  sir;  it  will 
prove  a  snare  to  your  feet.  Suffer  not  yourselves  to  be  be 
trayed  with  a  kiss.  Ask  yourselves  how  this  gracious  recep 
tion  of  our  petition  comports  with  these  warlike  prepara 
tions  which  cover  our  waters  and  darken  our  land.  Are 
fleets  and  armies  necessary  to  a  work  of  love  and  reconcilia 
tion?  Have  we  shown  ourselves  so  unwilling  to  be  reconciled, 
that  force  must  be  called  in  to  win  back  our  love?  Let  us 
not  deceive  ourselves,  sir.  These  are  implements  of  war 
and  subjugation;  the  last  arguments  to  which  kings  resort. 
I  ask  gentlemen,  sir,  what  means  this  martial  array,  if  its 
purpose  be  not  to  force  us  to  submission?  Can  gentlemen 
assign  any  other  possible  motives  for  it?  Has  Great  Brit 
ain  any  enemy,  in  this  quarter  of  the  world,  to  call  for 
all  this  accumulation  of  navies  and  armies?  No,  sir,  she 
has  none.  They  are  meant  for  us;  they  can  be  meant  for 
no  other.  They  are  sent  over  to  bind  and  rivet  upon  us 
those  chains  which  the  British  Ministry  have  been  so  long 
forging.  And  what  have  we  to  oppose  to  them?  Shall  we 
try  argument?  Sir,  we  have  been  trying  that  for  the  last 
ten  years.  Have  we  anything  new  to  offer  on  the  subject? 


LIBERTY  SPEECH  5 

Nothing.  We  have  held  the  subject  up  in  every  light  of 
which  it  is  capable;  but  it  has  been  all  in  vain.  Shall  we  re 
sort  to  entreaty  and  humble  supplication?  What  terms  shall 
we  find  which  have  not  been  already  exhausted?  Let  us 
not,  I  beseech  you,  sir,  deceive  ourselves  longer.  Sir,  we 
have  done  everything  that  could  be  done  to  avert  the  storm 
which  is  now  coming  on.  We  have  petitioned,  we  have  re 
monstrated;  we  have  supplicated;  we  have  prostrated  our 
selves  before  the  throne,  and  have  implored  its  interposition 
to  arrest  the  tyrannical  hands  of  the  Ministry  and  Parlia 
ment.  Our  petitions  have  been  slighted;  our  remonstrances 
have  produced  additional  violences  and  insult;  our  suppli 
cations  have  been  disregarded;  and  we  have  been  spurned, 
with  contempt,  from  the  foot  of  the  throne.  In  vain,  after 
these  things,  may  we  indulge  the  fond  hope  of  peace  and 
reconciliation.  There  is  no  longer  any  room  for  hope.  If  we 
wish  to  be  free  —  if  we  mean  to  preserve  inviolate  those 
inestimable  privileges  for  which  we  have  been  so  long  con 
tending  —  if  we  mean  not  basely  to  abandon  the  noble  strug 
gle  in  which  we  have  been  so  long  engaged,  and  which  we 
have  pledged  ourselves  never  to  abandon  until  the  glorious 
object  of  our  contest  shall  be  obtained,  we  must  fight!  I 
repeat  it,  sir,  we  must  fight!  An  appeal  to  arms  and  to  the 
God  of  Hosts  is  all  that  is  left  us. 

They  tell  us,  sir,  that  we  are  weak;  unable  to  cope  with  so 
formidable  an  adversary.  But  when  shall  we  be  stronger? 
Will  it  be  the  next  week,  or  the  next  year?  Will  it  be  when 
we  are  totally  disarmed,  and  when  a  British  guard  shall  be 
stationed  in  every  house?  Shall  we  gather  strength  by  irres 
olution  and  inaction?  Shall  we  acquire  the  means  of  effec 
tual  resistance  by  lying  supinely  on  our  backs,  and  hugging 
the  delusive  phantom  of  hope,  until  our  enemies  have  bound 
us  hand  and  foot?  Sir,  we  are  not  weak,  if  we  make  a  proper 
use  of  the  means  which  the  God  of  nature  hath  placed  in 


6  LIBERTY  AND  UNION 

our  power.  /Three  millions  of  people,  armed  in  the  holy 
cause  of  liberty,  and  in  such  a  country  as  that  which  we 
possess,  are  invincible  by  any  force  which  our  enemy  can 
send  against  us.  Besides,  sir,  we  shall  not  fight  our  battles 
alone/There  is  a  just  God  who  presides  over  the  destinies 
of  nations;  and  who  will  raise  up  friends  to  fight  our  battles 
for  us.  *The  battle,  sir,  is  not  to  the  strong  alone;  it  is  to 
the  vigilant,  the  active,  the  brave.  Besides,  sir,  we  have  no 
election.  If  we  were  base  enough  to  desire  it,  it  is  now  too 
late  to  retire  from  the  contest.  There  is  no  retreat  but  in 
submission  and  slavery!  Our  chains  are  forged!  Their 
clanking  may  be  heard  on  the  plains  of  Boston !  The  war  is 
inevitable  —  and  let  it  come!  I  repeat,  sir,  let  it  come! 

It  is  in  vain,  sir,  to  extenuate  the  matter.  Gentlemen  may 
cry  peace,  peace  —  but  there  is  no  peace.  The  war  is  actu 
ally  begun !  The  next  gale  that  sweeps  from  the  North  will 
bring  to  our  ears  the  clash  of  resounding  arms !  Our  brethren 
are  already  in  the  field !  Why  stand  we  here  idle?  What  is  it 
that  gentlemen  wish?  What  would  they  have?  Is  life  so 
dear,  or  peace  so  sweet,  as  to  be  purchased  at  the  price  of 
chains  and  slavery?  Forbid  it,  Almighty  God!  I  know  not 
what  course  others  may  take;  but  as  for  me,  give  me  liberty, 
or  give  me  death! 


\ 


THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE 

In  Congress,  July  4, 1776 
THOMAS  JEFFERSON 

WHEN  in  the  Course  of  human  Events,  it  becomes  neces 
sary  for  one  People  to  dissolve  the  Political  Bands  which 
have  connected  them  with  another,  and  to  assume  among 
the  Powers  of  the  Earth,  the  separate  and  equal  Station  to 
which  the  Laws  of  Nature  and  of  Nature's  God  entitle  them, 
a  decent  Respect  to  the  Opinions  of  Mankind  requires  that 
they  should  declare  the  Causes  which  impel  them  to  the 
Separation. 

We  hold  these  Truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  Men  are 
created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with 
certain  unalienable  Rights,  that  among  these  are  Life,  Lib 
erty  and  the  Pursuit  of  Happiness.  —  That  to  secure  these 
Rights  Governments  are  instituted  among  Men,  deriving 
their  just  Powers  from  the  Consent  of  the  Governed,  That 
whenever  any  Form  of  Government  becomes  destructive  of 
these  Ends,  it  is  the  Right  of  the  People  to  alter  or  to  abolish 
it,  and  to  institute  new  Government,  laying  its  Foundation 
on  such  Principles  and  organizing  its  Powers  in  such  Form,  as 
to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  Safety  and 
Happiness.  Prudence,  indeed,  will  dictate  that  Governments 
long  established  should  not  be  changed  for  light  and  tran 
sient  Causes;  and  accordingly  all  Experience  hath  shown, 
that  Mankind  are  more  disposed  to  suffer,  while  Evils  are 
sufferable,  than  to  right  themselves  by  abolishing  the  Forms 
to  which  they  are  accustomed.^  But  when  a  long  Train  of 
Abuses  and  Usurpations,  pursuing  invariably  the  same  Ob- 


8  LIBERTY  AND   UNION 

ject  evinces  a  Design  to  reduce  them  under  absolute  Des 
potism,  it  is  their  Right,  it  is  their  Duty,  to  throw  off  such 
Government,  and  to  provide  new  Guards  for  their  future 
security.  Such  has  been  the  patient  Sufferance  of  these  Col 
onies;  and  such  is  now  the  Necessity  which  constrains  them 
to  alter  their  former  Systems  of  Government.  The  History 
of  the  present  King  of  Great  Britain  is  a  History  of  repeated 
Injuries  and  Usurpations,  all  having  in  direct  Object  the 
Establishment  of  an  absolute  Tyranny  over  these  States.  .  .  . 
We,  therefore,  the  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  in  General  Congress  Assembled,  appealing  to 
the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  World  for  the  Rectitude  of  our 
Intentions,  do,  in  the  Name,  and  by  the  Authority  of  the 
good  People  of  these  Colonies,  solemnly  Publish  and  Declare, 
That  these  United  Colonies  are,  and  of  Right  ought  to  be, 
Free  and  Independent  States;  that  they  are  Absolved  from 
all  Allegiance  to  the  British  Crown,  and  that  all  political 
connexion  between  them  and  the  State  of  Great-Britain, 
is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally  dissolved;  and  that  as  Free  and 
Independent  States,  they  have  full  Power  to  levy  War, 
conclude  Peace,  contract  Alliances,  establish  Commerce, 
and  to  do  all  other  Acts  and  Things  which  Independent 
States  may  of  right  do.  And  for  the  support  of  this  Declara 
tion,  with  a  firm  reliance  on  the  Protection  of  Divine  Provi 
dence,  we  mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our  Lives,  our 
Fortunes,  and  our  sacred  Honour. 


THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  DECLARATION 
OF  INDEPENDENCE^ 

DANIEL  WEBSTER 

LET  us,  then,  bring  before  us  the  assembly,  which  was 
about  to  decide  a  question  thus  big  with  the  fate  of  empire. 
Let  us  open  their  doors  and  look  in  upon  their  deliberations. 
Let  us  survey  the  anxious  and  careworn  countenances,  let 
us  hear  the  firm-toned  voices,  of  this  band  of  patriots. 

Hancock  presides  over  the  solemn  sitting;  and  one  of 
those  not  yet  prepared  to  pronounce  for  absolute  Independ 
ence  is  on  the  floor,  and  is  urging  his  reasons  for  dissenting 
from  the  Declaration. 

"  Let  us  pause !  This  step,  once  taken,  cannot  be  retraced. 
This  resolution,  once  passed,  will  cut  off  all  hope  of  recon 
ciliation.  If  success  attend  the  arms  of  England,  we  shall 
then  be  no  longer  Colonies,  with  charters  and  with  privi 
leges;  these  will  all  be  forfeited  by  this  act;  and  we  shall  be 
in  the  condition  of  other  conquered  people,  at  the  mercy  of 
the  conquerors.  For  ourselves,  we  may  be  ready  to  run  the 
hazard;  but  are  we  ready  to  carry  the  country  to  that  length? 
Is  success  so  probable  as  to  justify  it?  Where  is  the  military, 
where  the  naval  power,  by  which  we  are  to  resist  the  whole 
strength  of  the  arm  of  England,  —  for  she  will  exert  that 
strength  to  the  utmost?  Can  we  rely  on  the  constancy  and 

1  From  the  "Oration  on  Adams  and  Jefferson,"  1826.  Regarding  the 
famous  imaginary  speech  of  John  Adams,  Webster  wrote,  in  1846,  "The 
speech  was  written  by  me  in  my  house,  in  Boston,  the  day  before  the  de 
livery  of  the  discourse  in  Faneuil  Hall;  a  poor  substitute,  I  am  sure,  if  we 
could  now  see  the  speech  actually  made  by  Mr.  Adams  on  that  transcend- 
ently  important  occasion." 


10  LIBERTY  AND   UNION 

perseverance  of  the  people?  or  will  they  not  act  as  the  peo 
ple  of  other  countries  have  acted,  and,  wearied  with  a  long 
war,  submit,  in  the  end,  to  a  worse  oppression?  While  we 
stand  on  our  old  ground,  and  insist  on  redress  of  grievances, 
we  know  we  are  right,  and  are  not  answerable  for  conse 
quences.  Nothing,  then,  can  be  imputed  to  us.  But  if  we 
now  change  our  object,  carry  our  pretensions  farther,  and  set 
up  for  absolute  Independence,  we  shall  lose  the  sympathy 
of  mankind.  We  shall  no  longer  be  defending  what  we 
possess,  but  struggling  for  something  which  we  never  did 
possess,  and  which  we  have  solemnly  and  uniformly  dis 
claimed  all  intention  of  pursuing,  from  the  very  outset  of  the 
troubles.  Abandoning  thus  our  old  ground,  of  resistance 
only  to  arbitrary  acts  of  oppression,  the  nations  will  believe 
the  whole  to  have  been  mere  pretence,  and  they  will  look 
on  us,  not  as  injured,  but  as  ambitious  subjects.  I  shudder 
before  this  responsibility.  It  will  be  on  us,  if,  relinquishing 
the  ground  on  which  we  have  stood  so  long,  and  stood  so 
safely,  we  now  proclaim  Independence,  and  carry  on  the  war 
for  that  object,  while  these  cities  burn,  these  pleasant  fields 
whiten  and  bleach  with  the  bones  of  their  owners,  and 
these  streams  run  blood.  It  will  be  upon  us,  it  will  be  upon 
us,  if,  failing  to  maintain  this  unseasonable  and  ill-judged 
declaration,  a  sterner  despotism,  maintained  by  military 
power,  shall  be  established  over  our  posterity,  when  we  our 
selves,  given  up  by  an  exhausted,  a  harassed,  a  misled  peo 
ple,  shall  have  expiated  our  rashness  and  atoned  for  our 
presumption  on  the  scaffold." 

It  was  for  Mr.  Adams  to  reply  to  arguments  like  these. 
We  know  his  opinions,  and  we  know  his  character.  He 
would  commence  with  his  accustomed  directness  and 
earnestness. 

"Sink  or  swim,  live  or  die,  survive  or  perish,  I  give  my 
hand  and  my  heart  to  this  vote.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  hi 


THE  ADOPTION   OF  THE   DECLARATION         11 

the  beginning  we  aimed  not  at  Independence.  But  there's 
a  Divinity  which  shapes  our  ends.  The  injustice  of  England 
has  driven  us  to  arms;  and,  blinded  to  her  own  interest  for 
our  good,  she  has  obstinately  persisted,  till  Independence 
is  now  within  our  grasp.  We  have  but  to  reach  forth  to 
it,  and  it  is  ours.  Why,  then,  should  we  defer  the  Declara 
tion?  Is  any  man  so  weak  as  now  to  hope  for  a  reconcilia 
tion  with  England,  which  shall  leave  either  safety  to  the 
country  and  its  liberties,  or  safety  to  his  own  life  and  his 
own  honor?  Are  not  you,  Sir,  who  sit  in  that  chair,  —  is 
not  he,  our  venerable  colleague  near  you,  —  are  you  not 
both  already  the  proscribed  and  predestined  objects  of  pun 
ishment  and  of  vengeance?  Cut  off  from  all  hope  of  royal 
clemency,  what  are  you,  what  can  you  be,  while  the  power 
of  England  remains,  but  outlaws?  If  we  postpone  Independ 
ence,  do  we  mean  to  carry  on,  or  to  give  up,  the  war?  Do 
we  mean  to  submit  to  the  measures  of  Parliament,  Boston 
Port  Bill  and  all?  Do  we  mean  to  submit  and  consent  that 
we  ourselves  shall  be  ground  to  powder,  and  our  country 
and  its  rights  trodden  down  in  the  dust?  I  know  we  do  not 
mean  to  submit.  We  never  shall  submit.  Do  we  intend  to 
violate  that  most  solemn  obligation  ever  entered  into  by 
men,  that  plighting,  before  God,  of  our  sacred  honor  to 
Washington,  when,  putting  him  forth  to  incur  the  dangers 
of  war,  as  well  as  the  political  hazards  of  the  times,  we 
promised  to  adhere  to  him,  in  every  extremity,  with  our 
fortunes  and  our  lives?  I  know  there  is  not  a  man  here, 
who  would  not  rather  see  a  general  conflagration  sweep  over 
the  land,  or  an  earthquake  sink  it,  than  one  jot  or  tittle  of 
that  plighted  faith  fall  to  the  ground.  For  myself,  having 
twelve  months  ago,  in  this  place,  moved  you,  that  George 
Washington  be  appointed  commander  of  the  forces  raised, 
or  to  be  raised,  for  defence  of  American  liberty,  may  my 
right  hand  forget  her  cunning,  and  my  tongue  cleave  to  the 


12  LIBERTY  AND   UNION 

roof  of  my  mouth,  if  I  hesitate  or  waver  in  the  support  I 
give  him. 

"The  war,  then,  must  go  on.  We  must  fight  it  through. 
And  if  the  war  must  go  on,  why  put  off  longer  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence?  That  measure  will  strengthen  us. 
It  will  give  us  character  abroad.  The  nations  will  then 
treat  with  us,  which  they  never  can  do  while  we  acknowl 
edge  ourselves  subjects,  in  arms  against  our  sovereign.  Nay, 
I  maintain,  that  England  herself  will  sooner  treat  for  peace 
with  us  on  the  footing  of  Independence,  than  consent,  by 
repealing  her  acts,  to  acknowledge  that  her  whole  conduct 
towards  us  has  been  a  course  of  injustice  and  oppression. 
Her  pride  will  be  less  wounded  by  submitting  to  that  course 
of  things  which  now  predestinates  our  Independence,  than 
by  yielding  the  points  in  controversy  to  her  rebellious  sub 
jects.  The  former  she  would  regard  as  the  result  of  for 
tune;  the  latter  she  would  feel  as  her  own  deep  disgrace. 
Why  then,  why  then,  Sir,  do  wre  not  as  soon  as  possible 
change  this  from  a  civil  to  a  national  war?  And  since  we 
must  fight  it  through,  why  not  put  ourselves  in  a  state  to 
enjoy  all  the  benefits  of  victory,  if  we  gain  the  victory? 

"If  we  fail,  it  can  be  no  worse  for  us.  But  we  shall  not 
fail.  The  cause  will  raise  up  armies;  the  cause  will  create 
navies.  The  people,  the  people,  if  we  are  true  to  them,  will 
carry  us,  and  will  carry  themselves,  gloriously,  through  this 
struggle.  I  care  not  how  fickle  other  people  have  been 
found.  I  know  the  people  of  these  Colonies,  and  I  know  that 
resistance  to  British  aggression  is  deep  and  settled  in  their 
hearts  and  cannot  be  eradicated.  Every  Colony,  indeed, 
has  expressed  its  willingness  to  follow,  if  we  but  take  the 
lead.  Sir,  the  Declaration  will  inspire  the  people  with  in 
creased  courage.  Instead  of  a  long  and  bloody  war  for  the 
restoration  of  privileges,  for  redress  of  grievances,  for  char 
tered  immunities,  held  under  a  British  king,  set  before  them 


THE   ADOPTION   OF   THE   DECLARATION        13 

the  glorious  object  of  entire  Independence,  and  it  will 
breathe  into  them  anew  the  breath  of  life.  Read  this  Dec 
laration  at  the  head  of  the  army;  every  sword  will  be 
drawn  from  its  scabbard,  and  the  solemn  vow  uttered,  to 
maintain  it,  or  to  perish  on  the  bed  of  honor.  Publish  it 
from  the  pulpit;  religion  will  approve  it,  and  the  love  of 
religious  liberty  will  cling  round  it,  resolved  to  stand  with 
it,  or  fall  with  it.  Send  it  to  the  public  halls;  proclaim  it 
there;  let  them  hear  it  who  heard  the  first  roar  of  the  enemy's 
cannon;  let  them  see  it  who  saw  their  brothers  and  their 
sons  fall  on  the  field  of  Bunker  Hill,  and  in  the  streets  of 
Lexington  and  Concord,  and  the  very  walls  will  cry  out  in 
its  support. 

"Sir,  I  know  the  uncertainty  of  human  affairs,  but  I  see, 
I  see  clearly,  through  this  day's  business.  You  and  I,  in 
deed,  may  rue  it.  We  may  not  live  to  the  time  when  this 
Declaration  shall  be  made  good.  We  may  die;  die  colonists; 
die  slaves;  die,  it  may  be,  ignominiously  and  on  the  scaf 
fold.  Be  it  so.  Be  it  so.  If  it  be  the  pleasure  of  Heaven  that 
my  country  shall  require  the  poor  offering  of  my  life,  the 
victim  shall  be  ready,  at  the  appointed  hour  of  sacrifice, 
come  when  that  hour  may.  fBut  while  I  do  live,  let  me  have 
a  country,  or  at  least  the  hope  of  a  country,  and  that  a  free 
country.  / 

"But  whatever  may  be  our  fate,  be  assured,  be  assured 
that  this  Declaration  wTill  stand.  It  may  cost  treasure,  and 
it  may  cost  blood;  but  it  will  stand,  and  it  will  richly  com 
pensate  for  both.  Through  the  thick  gloom  of  the  present, 
I  see  the  brightness  of  the  future,  as  the  sun  in  heaven.  We 
shall  make  this  a  glorious,  an  immortal  day.  WTien  we  are 
in  our  graves,  our  children  will  honor  it.  They  will  cele 
brate  it  with  thanksgiving,  with  festivity,  with  bonfires, 
and  illuminations.  On  its  annual  return  they  will  shed  tears, 
copious,  gushing  tears,  not  of  subjection  and  slavery,  not 


14  LIBERTY  AND  UNION 

of  agony  and  distress,  but  of  exultation,  of  gratitude,  and 
of  joy.  Sir,  before  God,  I  believe  the  hour  is  come.  My 
judgment  approves  this  measure,  and  my  whole  heart  is  in 
it.  All  that  I  have,  and  all  that  I  am,  and  all  that  I  ever 
hope,  in  this  life,  I  am  now  ready  here  to  stake  upon  it;  and 
I  leave  off  as  I  began,  that  live  or  die,  survive  or  perish,  I 
am  for  the  Declaration.  It  is  my  living  sentiment,  and  by 
the  blessing  of  God  it  shall  be  my  dying  sentiment,  Inde 
pendence  now,  and  INDEPENDENCE  FOREVER." 

And  so  that  day  shall  be  honored,  illustrious  prophet  and 
patriot!  so  that  day  shall  be  honored,  and  as  often  as  it  re 
turns,  thy  renown  shall  come  along  with  it,  and  the  glory 
of  thy  life,  like  the  day  of  thy  death,  shall  not  fail  from  the 
remembrance  of  men. 


n 

STATE  AND  NATION 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION1 
DANIEL  WEBSTER 

I  MUST  now  beg  to  ask,  sir,  Whence  is  this  supposed  right 
of  States  derived?  Where  do  they  find  the  power  to  inter 
fere  with  the  laws  of  the  Union?  Sir,  the  opinion  which  the 
honorable  gentleman  maintains  is  a  notion  founded  in  a 
total  misapprehension,  in  my  judgment,  of  the  origin  of 
this  Government,  and  of  the  foundation  on  which  it  stands. 
I  hold  it  to  be  a  popular  Government,  erected  by  the 
people;  those  who  administer  it  responsible  to  the  people; 
and  itself  capable  of  being  amended  and  modified,  just  as 
the  people  may  choose  it  should  be.  It  is  as  popular,  just 
as  truly  emanating  from  the  people,  as  the  State  Govern 
ments.  It  is  created  for  one  purpose;  the  State  Govern 
ments  for  another.  It  has  its  own  powers;  they  have  theirs. 
There  is  no  more  authority  with  them  to  arrest  the  opera 
tion  of  a  law  of  Congress,  than  with  Congress  to  arrest 
the  operation  of  their  laws.  We  are  here  to  administer  a 
Constitution  emanating  immediately  from  the  people,  and 
trusted  by  them  to  our  administration.  It  is  not  the  crea 
ture  of  the  State  Governments. 

^  This  Government,  sir,  is  the  independent  offspring  of  the 
popular  will.  It  is  not  the  creature  of  State  Legislatures; 
nay,  more,  if  the  whole  truth  must  be  told,  the  people 
brought  it  into  existence,  established  it,  and  have  hitherto 
supported  it,  for  the  very  purpose,  amongst  others,  of  im 
posing  certain  salutary  restraints  on  State  sovereignties. 
The  States  cannot  now  make  war;  they  cannot  contract  alli 
ances;  they  cannot  make,  each  for  itself,  separate  regula- 
1  From  Webster's  "  Reply  to  Hayne,"  January  26,  1830. 


18  STATE   AND   NATION 

tions  of  commerce;  they  cannot  lay  imposts;  they  cannot 
coin  money.  If  this  Constitution,  sir,  be  the  creature  of 
State  Legislatures,  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  has  ob 
tained  a  strange  control  over  the  volitions  of  its  creators. 

The  people  then,  sir,  erected  this  Government.  They 
gave  it  a  Constitution,  and  in  that  Constitution  they  have 
enumerated  the  powers  which  they  bestow  on  it.  They  have 
made  it  a  limited  Government.  They  have  defined  its 
authority.  They  have  restrained  it  to  the  exercise  of  such 
powers  as  are  granted;  and  all  others,  they  declare,  are  re 
served  to  the  States,  or  the  people.  But,  sir,  they  have  not 
stopped  here.  If  they  had,  they  would  have  accomplished 
but  half  their  work.  No  definition  can  be  so  clear  as  to 
avoid  the  possibility  of  a  doubt;  no  limitation  so  precise  as 
to  exclude  all  uncertainty.  Who,  then,  shall  construe  this 
grant  of  the  people.  Who  shall  interpret  their  will,  where 
it  may  be  supposed  they  have  left  it  doubtful?  With  whom 
do  they  repose  this  ultimate  right  of  deciding  on  the  powers  of 
the  Government?  Sir,  they  have  settled  all  this  in  the  full 
est  manner.  They  have  left  it  with  the  Government  itself, 
in  its  appropriate  branches.  Sir,  the  very  chief  end,  the  main 
design,  for  which  the  whole  Constitution  was  framed  and 
adopted,  was  to  establish  a  Government  that  should  not 
be  obliged  to  act  through  State  agency,  or  depend  on  State 
opinion  or  State  discretion.  The  people  had  had  quite 
enough  of  that  kind  of  government  under  the  Confederation. 
Under  that  system,  the  legal  action,  the  application  of  law 
to  individuals,  belonged  exclusively  to  the  States.  Con 
gress  could  only  recommend;  their  acts  were  not  of  binding 
force  till  the  States  had  adopted  and  sanctioned  them.  Are 
we  in  that  condition  still?  Are  we  yet  at  the  mercy  of  State 
discretion  and  State  construction?  Sir,  if  we  are,  then  vain 
will  be  our  attempt  to  maintain  the  Constitution  under 
which  we  sit. 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  19 

But,  sir,  the  people  have  wisely  provided,  in  the  Consti 
tution  itself,  a  proper,  suitable  mode  and  tribunal  for  set 
tling  questions  of  constitutional  law.  There  are  in  the 
Constitution  grants  of  powers  to  Congress,  and  restrictions 
on  these  powers.  There  are  also  prohibitions  on  the  States. 
Some  authority  must,  therefore,  necessarily  exist,  having 
the  ultimate  jurisdiction  to  fix  and  ascertain  the  interpre 
tation  of  these  grants,  restrictions,  and  prohibitions.  The 
Constitution  has  itself  pointed  out,  ordained,  and  estab 
lished  that  authority.  How  has  it  accomplished  this  great 
and  essential  end?  By  declaring,  sir,  that  "the  Constitu 
tion  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  made  in  pursuance 
thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  anything  in 
the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  not 
withstanding."^ 

This,  sir,  was  the  first  great  step.  By  this  the  supremacy 
of  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  are 
declared.  The  people  so  will  it.  No  State  law  is  to  be  valid 
which  comes  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  or  any  law 
of  the  United  States  passed  in  pursuance  of  it.  But  who 
shall  decide  this  question  of  interference?  To  whom  lies  the 
last  appeal?  This,  sir,  the  Constitution  itself  decides  also, 
declaring  "that  the  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases 
arising  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States."  These  two  provisions  cover  the  whole  ground. 
They  are,  in  truth,  the  keystone  of  the  arch!  With  these 
it  is  a  Government;  without  them,  a  Confederation.  In 
pursuance  of  these  clear  and  express  provisions,  Congress 
established,  at  its  first  session,  in  the  judicial  act,  a  mode 
for  carrying  them  into  full  effect,  and  for  bringing  all  ques 
tions  of  constitutional  power  to  the  final  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  It  then,  sir,  became  a  Government.  It 
then  had  the  means  of  self-protection;  and  but  for  this  it 
would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  now  among  things 


20  STATE  AND   NATION 

which  are  past.  Having  constituted  the  Government,  and 
declared  its  powers,  the  people  have  further  said  that  since 
somebody  must  decide  on  the  extent  of  these  powers,  the 
Government  shall  itself  decide,  subject  always,  like  other 
popular  Governments,  to  its  responsibility  to  the  people. 
And  now,  sir,  I  repeat,  how  is  it  that  a  State  Legislature 
acquires  any  power  to  interfere?  Who  or  what  gives  them 
the  right  to  say  to  the  people,  "We  who  are  your  agents 
and  servants  for  one  purpose,  will  undertake  to  decide 
that  your  other  agents  and  servants,  appointed  by  you 
for  another  purpose,  have  transcended  the  authority  you 
gave  them!"  The  reply  would  be,  I  think,  not  impertinent, 
"WTho  made  you  a  judge  over  another's  servants?  To 
their  own  masters  they  stand  or  fall." 

Sir,  I  deny  this  power  of  State  Legislatures  altogether. 
It  cannot  stand  the  test  of  examination.  Gentlemen  may 
say  that  in  an  extreme  case  a  State  Government  may  pro 
tect  the  people  from  intolerable  oppression.  Sir,  in  such  a 
case  the  people  might  protect  themselves  without  the  aid 
of  State  Governments.  Such  a  case  warrants  revolution. 
It  must  make,  when  it  comes,  a  law  for  itself.  A  nullifying 
act  of  a  State  Legislature  cannot  alter  the  case,  nor  make 
resistance  any  more  lawful.  In  maintaining  these  senti 
ments,  sir,  I  am  but  asserting  the  rights  of  the  people.  I 
state  what  they  have  declared,  and  insist  on  their  right  to 
declare  it.  They  have  chosen  to  repose  this  power  in  the 
General  Government,  and  I  think  it  my  duty  to  support  it 
like  other  constitutional  powers. 

For  myself,  sir,  I  do  not  admit  the  competency  of  South 
Carolina  or  any  other  State  to  prescribe  my  constitutional 
duty,  or  to  settle,  between  me  and  the  people,  the  validity 
of  laws  of  Congress  for  which  I  have  voted.  I  decline  her 
umpirage.  I  have  not  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution 
according  to  her  construction  of  the  clauses.  I  have  not 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  21 

stipulated  by  my  oath  of  office  'or  otherwise  to  come  under 
any  responsibility,  except  to  the  people,  and  those  whom 
they  have  appointed  to  pass  upon  the  question,  whether 
laws,  supported  by  my  votes,  conform  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  country.  And,  sir,  if  we  look  to  the  general  nature  of  the 
case,  could  anything  have  been  more  preposterous  than  to 
make  a  Government  for  the  whole  Union,  and  yet  leave 
its  power  subject,  not  to  one  interpretation,  but  to  thirteen 
or  twenty-four  interpretations?  Instead  of  one  tribunal, 
established  by  all,  responsible  to  all,  with  power  to  decide 
for  all,  shall  constitutional  questions  be  left  to  four-and- 
twenty  popular  bodies,  each  at  liberty  to  decide  for  itself, 
and  none  bound  to  respect  the  decisions  of  others;  and  each 
at  liberty,  too,  to  give  a  new  Constitution  on  every  new 
election  of  its  own  members?  Would  anything,  with  such 
a  principle  in  it,  or  rather  with  such  a  destitution  of  all 
principle,  be  fit  to  be  called  a  Government?  No,  sir.  It 
should  not  be  denominated  a  Constitution.  It  should  be 
called,  rather,  a  collection  of  topics  for  everlasting  contro 
versy;  heads  of  debate  for  a  disputatious  people.  It  would 
mot  be  a  Government.  It  would  not  be  adequate  to  any 
practical  good,  or  fit  for  any  country  to  live  under. 

To  avoid  all  possibility  of  being  misunderstood,  allow 
me  to  repeat  again  in  the  fullest  manner  that  I  claim  no 
powers  for  the  Government  by  forced  or  unfair  construc 
tion.  I  admit  that  it  is  a  Government  of  strictly  limited 
powers;  of  enumerated,  specified,  and  particularized  powers; 
and  that  whatsoever  is  not  granted  is  withheld.  But  not 
withstanding  all  this,  and  however  the  grant  of  powers  may 
be  expressed,  its  limit  and  extent  may  yet,  in  some  cases, 
admit  of  doubt;  and  the  General  Government  would  be  good 
for  nothing,  it  would  be  incapable  of  long  existing,  if  some 
mode  had  not  been  provided  in  which  those  doubts  as 
they  should  arise  might  be  peaceably  but  authoritatively 
solved.  . 


22  STATE   AND  NATION 

The  honorable  gentleman  argues  that  if  this  Government 
be  the  sole  judge  of  the  extent  of  its  own  powers,  whether 
that  right  of  judging  be  in  Congress  or  the  Supreme  Court, 
it  equally  subverts  State  sovereignty.  This  the  gentleman 
sees,  or  thinks  he  sees,  although  he  cannot  perceive  how  the 
right  of  judging  in  this  matter,  if  left  to  the  exercise  of  the 
State  Legislatures,  has  any  tendencies  to  subvert  the  Gov 
ernment  of  the  Union.  The  gentleman's  opinion  may  be 
that  the  right  ought  not  to  have  been  lodged  with  the 
General  Government;  he  may  like  better  such  a  Constitu 
tion  as  we  should  have  under  the  right  of  State  interfer 
ence;  but  I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the  plain  matter  of  fact. 
I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the  Constitution  itself.  I  ask  him 
if  the  power  is  not  found  there,  clearly  and  visibly  found 
there? 

But,  sir,  what  is  this  danger,  and  what  are  the  grounds  of 
it?  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  not  unalterable.  It  is  to  continue  in  its 
present  form  no  longer  than  the  people  who  established  it 
shall  choose  to  continue  it.  If  they  shall  become  convinced 
that  they  have  made  an  injudicious  or  inexpedient  parti 
tion  and  distribution  of  power  between  the  State  Govern 
ments  and  the  General  Government,  they  can  alter  that 
distribution  at  will. 

If  anything  be  found  in  the  National  Constitution,  either 
by  original  provision  or  subsequent  interpretation,  which 
ought  not  to  be  in  it,  the  people  know  how  to  get  rid  of  it. 
If  any  construction,  unacceptable  to  them,  be  established 
so  as  to  become  practically  a  part  of  the  Constitution,  they 
will  amend  it  at  their  own  sovereign  pleasure.  But  while 
people  choose  to  maintain  it  as  it  is,  while  they  are  satisfied 
with  it,  and  refuse  to  change  it,  who  has  given,  or  who  can 
give,  to  the  Legislature  a  right  to  alter  it,  either  by  in 
terference,  construction,  or  otherwise?  Gentlemen  do  not 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  23 

seem  to  recollect  that  the  people  have  any  power  to  do  any 
thing  for  themselves.  They  imagine  there  is  no  safety  for 
them  any  longer  than  they  are  under  the  close  guardian 
ship  of  the  State  Legislatures.  Sir,  the  people  have  not 
trusted  their  safety,  in  regard  to  the  general  Constitution, 
to  these  hands.  They  have  required  other  security,  and 
taken  other  bonds.  They  have  chosen  to  trust  themselves, 
first,  to  the  plain  words  of  the  instrument,  and  to  such  con 
struction  as  the  Government  themselves,  in  doubtful  cases, 
should  put  on  their  powers,  under  their  oaths  of  office, 
and  subject  to  their  responsibility  to  them,  just  as  the  peo 
ple  of  a  State  trust  their  own  Governments  with  a  similar 
power.  Second,  they  have  reposed  their  trust  in  the  efficacy 
of  frequent  elections,  and  in  their  own  power  to  remove 
their  own  servants  and  agents  whenever  they  see  cause. 
Third,  they  have  reposed  trust  in  the  judicial  power,  which, 
in  order  that  it  might  be  trustworthy,  they  have  made  as 
respectable,  as  disinterested,  and  as  independent  as  was 
practicable.  Fourth,  they  have  seen  fit  to  rely,  in  case  of 
necessity,  or  high  expediency,  on  their  known  and  ad 
mitted  power  to  alter  or  amend  the  Constitution,  peace 
ably  and  quietly,  whenever  experience  shall  point  out  de 
fects  or  imperfections.  And,  finally,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  have  at  no  time,  in  no  way,  directly  or  indirectly, 
authorized  any  State  Legislature  to  construe  or  interpret 
their  high  instrument  of  government,  much  less  to  inter 
fere,  by  their  own  power,  to  arrest  its  course  and  operation. 
If,  sir,  the  people  in  these  respects  had  done  otherwise  than 
they  have  done,  their  Constitution  could  neither  have  been 
preserved,  nor  would  it  have  been  worth  preserving.  And 
if  its  plain  provisions  shall  now  be  disregarded,  and  these 
new  doctrines  interpolated  in  it,  it  will  become  as  feeble 
and  helpless  a  being  as  its  enemies,  whether  early  or  more 
recent,  could  possibly  desire.  It  will  exist  in  every  State 


24  STATE   AND  NATION 

but  as  a  poor  dependent  on  State  permission.  It  must  bor 
row  leave  to  be;  and  will  be,  no  longer  than  State  pleasure, 
or  indiscretion,  sees  fit  to  grant  the  indulgence,  and  to  pro 
long  its  poor  existence. 

But,  sir,  although  there  are  fears,  there  are  hopes  also. 
The  people  have  preserved  this,  their  own  Constitution, 
for  forty  years,  and  have  seen  their  happiness,  prosperity, 
and  renown  grow  with  its  growth,  and  strengthen  with  its 
strength.  They  are  now,  generally,  strongly  attached  to  it. 
Overthrown  by  direct  assault,  it  cannot  be;  evaded,  under 
mined,  NULLIFIED,  it  will  not  be,  if  we,  and  those  who  shall 
succeed  us  here,  as  agents  and  representatives  of  the  people, 
shall  conscientiously  and  vigilantly  discharge  the  two  great 
branches  of  our  public  trust,  faithfully  to  preserve  and 
wisely  to  administer  it. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  thus  stated  the  reasons  of  my  dis 
sent  to  the  doctrines  which  have  been  advanced  and  main 
tained.  I  am  conscious  of  having  detained  you  and  the 
Senate  much  too  long.  I  was  drawn  into  the  debate  with 
no  previous  deliberation,  such  as  is  suited  to  the  discussion 
of  so  grave  and  important  a  subject.  But  it  is  a  subject  of 
which  my  heart  is  full,  and  I  have  not  been  willing  to  sup 
press  the  utterance  of  its  spontaneous  sentiments.  I  cannot, 
even  now,  persuade  myself  to  relinquish  it  without  express 
ing  once  more  my  deep  conviction  that  since  it  respects 
nothing  less  than  the  Union  of  the  States,  it  is  of  most  vital 
and  essential  importance  to  the  public  happiness.  I  profess, 
sir,  in  my  career  hitherto  to  have  kept  steadily  in  view  the 
prosperity  and  honor  of  the  whole  country,  and  the  pres 
ervation  of  our  Federal  Union.  It  is  to  that  Union  we  owe 
our  safety  at  home,  and  our  consideration  and  dignity 
abroad.  It  is  to  that  Union  that  we  are  chiefly  indebted 
for  whatever  makes  us  most  proud  of  our  country.  The 
Union  we  reached  only  by  the  discipline  of  our  virtues  in  the 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  25 

severe  school  of  adversity.  It  has  its  origin  in  the  necessi 
ties  of  disordered  finance,  prostrate  commerce,  and  ruined 
credit.  Under  its  benign  influences  these  great  interests 
immediately  awoke,  as  from  the  dead,  and  sprang  forth 
with  newness  of  life.  Every  year  of  its  duration  has  teemed 
with  fresh  proofs  of  its  utility  and  its  blessings;  and  although 
our  territory  has  stretched  out  wider  and  wider,  and  our 
population  spread  farther  and  farther,  they  have  not  out 
run  its  protection  or  its  benefits.  It  has  been  to  us  all  a 
copious  fountain  of  national,  social,  and  personal  happiness. 
I  have  not  allowed  myself,  sir,  to  look  beyond  the  Union, 
to  see  what  might  lie  hidden  in  the  dark  recess  behind.  I 
have  not  coolly  weighed  the  chances  of  preserving  liberty 
when  the  bonds  that  unite  us  together  shall  be  broken 
asunder.  I  have  not  accustomed  myself  to  hang  over  the 
precipice  of  disunion,  to  see  whether,  with  my  short  sight, 
I  can  fathom  the  depth  of  the  abyss  below;  nor  could  I  re 
gard  him  as  a  safe  counsellor  in  the  affairs  of  this  Govern 
ment,  whose  thoughts  should  mainly  be  bent  on  consider 
ing,  not  how  the  Union  may  be  preserved,  but  how  tolerable 
might  be  the  condition  of  the  people  when  it  should  be 
broken  up  and  destroyed.  While  the  Union  lasts  we  have 
high,  exciting,  gratifying  prospects  spread  out  before  us,  for 
us  and  our  children.  Beyond  that  I  seek  not  to  penetrate  the 
veil.  God  grant  that  in  my  day,  at  least,  that  curtain  may 
not  rise !  God  grant  that  on  my  vision  never  may  be  opened 
what  lies  behind!  When  my  eyes  shall  be  turned  to  behold 
for  the  last  time  the  sun  in  heaven,  may  I  not  see  him  shin 
ing  on  the  broken  and  dishonored  fragments  of  a  once  glori 
ous  Union  —  on  States  dissevered,  discordant,  belligerent; 
on  a  land  rent  with  civil  feuds,  or  drenched,  it  may  be,  in 
fraternal  blood!  Let  their  last  feeble  and  lingering  glance 
rather  behold  the  gorgeous  ensign  of  the  Republic,  now 
known  and  honored  throughout  the  earth,  still  full  high 


26  STATE   AND  NATION 

advanced,  its  arms  and  trophies  streaming  in  their  original 
lustre,  not  a  stripe  erased  or  polluted,  not  a  single  star  ob 
scured,  bearing  for  its  motto  no  such  miserable  interroga 
tory  as  "What  is  all  this  worth?"  nor  those  other  words  of 
delusion  and  folly,  "Liberty  first  and  Union  afterward"; 
but  everywhere,  spread  all  over  in  characters  of  living  light, 
blazing  on  all  its  ample  folds,  as  they  float  over  the  sea  and 
over  the  land,  and  in  every  wind  under  the  whole  heavens, 
that  other  sentiment,  dear  to  every  true  American  heart  — 
Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  forever,  one  and  inseparable.^ 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  * 

JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  composing  these 
United  States  are  united  as  parties  to  a  constitutional  compact, 
to  which  the  people  of  each  State  acceded  as  a  separate  and  sov 
ereign  community,  each  binding  itself  by  its  own  particular  ratifi 
cation;  and  that  the  Union,  of  which  the  said  compact  is  the  bond, 
is  a  Union  between  the  States  ratifying  the  same. 

Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  thus  united  by 
the  constitutional  compact,  in  forming  that  instrument,  and  in 
creating  a  General  Government  to  carry  into  effect  the  objects 
for  which  it  was  formed,  delegated  to  that  Government,  for  that 
purpose,  certain  definite  powers,  to  be  exercised  jointly,  reserving, 
at  the  same  time,  each  State  to  itself,  the  residuary  mass  of  powers, 
to  be  exercised  by  its  own  separate  government;  and  that,  when 
ever  the  General  Government  assumes  the  exercise  of  powers  not 
delegated  by  the  compact,  its  acts  are  unauthorized,  void,  and  of 
no  effect;  and  that  the  said  Government  is  not  made  the  final  judge 
of  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  since  that  would  make  its  discre 
tion,  and  not  the  Constitution,  the  measure  of  its  powers;  but  that, 
as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact  among  sovereign  parties,  with 
out  any  common  judge,  each  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself, 
as  well  of  the  infraction,  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

Resolved,  That  the  assertions  that  the  people  of  these  United 
States,  taken  collectively  as  individuals,  are  now,  or  ever  have 
been,  united  on  the  principle  of  the  social  compact,  and,  as  such, 
are  now  formed  into  one  nation  or  people,  or  that  they  have  ever 
been  so  united,  in  any  one  stage  of  their  political  existence;  that 
the  people  of  the  several  States  composing  the  Union  have  not,  as 
members  thereof,  retained  their  sovereignty;  that  the  allegiance  of 
their  citizens  has  been  transferred  to  the  General  Government; 

1  From  the  reply  of  Calhoun  to  Webster,  on  the  resolutions  offered  by 
the  former  respecting  the  rights  of  States;  delivered  in  the  Senate,  Feb 
ruary  20,  1833.  Considered  in  its  entirety,  this  was  perhaps  Calhoun's 
most  powerful  speech  in  defense  of  State  sovereignty. 


28  STATE  AND  NATION 

that  they  have  parted  with  the  right  of  punishing  treason  through 
their  respective  State  Governments;  and  that  they  have  not  the 
right  of  judging,  in  the  last  resort,  as  to  the  extent  of  powers  re 
served,  and,  of  consequence,  of  those  delegated,  are  not  only  with 
out  foundation  in  truth,  but  are  contrary  to  the  most  certain  and 
plain  historical  facts,  and  the  clearest  deductions  of  reason;  and 
that  all  exercise  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  General  Government, 
or  any  of  its  departments,  deriving  authority  from  such  erroneous 
assumptions,  must  of  necessity  be  unconstitutional  —  must  tend 
directly  and  inevitably  to  subvert  the  sovereignty  of  the  States 
—  to  destroy  the  federal  character  of  the  Union,  and  to  rear  on  its 
ruins  a  consolidated  government,  without  constitutional  check  or 
limitation,  which  must  necessarily  terminate  in  the  loss  of  liberty 
itself. 

I  WILL  now  return  to  the  first  resolution,  to  see  how  the 
issue  stands  between  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Web 
ster]  and  myself.  It  contains  three  propositions.  First,  that 
the  Constitution  is  a  compact;  second,  that  it  was  formed  by 
the  States,  constituting  distinct  communities;  and,  lastly, 
that  it  is  a  subsisting  and  binding  compact  between  the 
States.  How  do  these  three  propositions  now  stand?  The 
first,  I  trust,  has  been  satisfactorily  established;  the  second, 
the  Senator  has  admitted,  faintly,  indeed,  but  still  he  has 
admitted  it  to  be  true.  This  admission  is  something.  It  is  so 
much  gained  by  discussion.  Three  years  ago  even  this  was 
a  contested  point.  But  I  cannot  say  that  I  thank  him  for 
the  admission:  we  owe  it  to  the  force  of  truth.  The  fact 
that  these  States  were  declared  to  be  free  and  independent 
States  at  the  time  of  their  independence;  that  they  were 
acknowledged  to  be  so  by  Great  Britain  in  the  treaty  which 
terminated  the  War  of  the  Revolution,  and  secured  their 
independence;  that  they  were  recognized  in  the  same  charac 
ter  in  the  old  Articles  of  the  Confederation;  and,  finally, 
that  the  present  Constitution  was  formed  by  a  convention  of 
the  several  States  —  afterwards  submitted  to  them  for  their 
respective  ratifications,  and  was  ratified  by  them  separately, 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  29 

each  for  itself,  and  each,  by  its  own  act,  binding  its  citizens, 
—  formed  a  body  of  facts  too  clear  to  be  denied,  and  too 
strong  to  be  resisted. 

It  now  remains  to  consider  the  third  and  last  proposition 
contained  in  the  resolution  —  that  it  is  a  binding  and  a 
subsisting  compact  between  the  States.  The  Senator  was 
not  explicit  on  this  point.  I  understood  him,  however,  as 
asserting  that,  though  formed  by  the  States,  the  Consti 
tution  was  not  binding  between  the  States  as  distinct 
communities,  but  between  the  American  people  in  the  ag 
gregate;  who,  in  consequence  of  the  adoption  of  the  Consti 
tution,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  Senator,  became  one 
people,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  the  delegated  powers.  This 
would,  indeed,  be  a  great  change.  All  acknowledge  that, 
previous  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  States 
constituted  distinct  and  independent  communities,  in  full 
possession  of  their  sovereignty;  and,  surely,  if  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution  was  intended  to  effect  the  great  and  im 
portant  change  in  their  condition  which  the  theory  of  the 
Senator  supposes,  some  evidence  of  it  ought  to  be  found  in 
the  instrument  itself.  It  professes  to  be  a  careful  and  full 
enumeration  of  all  the  powers  which  the  States  delegated, 
and  of  every  modification  of  their  political  condition.  The 
Senator  said  that  he  looked  to  the  Constitution  in  order  to 
ascertain  its  real  character;  and,  surely,  he  ought  to  look  to 
the  same  instrument  in  order  to  ascertain  what  changes 
were,  in  fact,  made  in  the  political  condition  of  the  States 
and  the  country.  But,  with  the  exception  of  "We,  the  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States,"  in  the  preamble,  he  has  not 
pointed  out  a  single  indication  in  the  Constitution,  of  the 
great  change  which,  as  he  conceives,  has  been  effected  in 
this  respect. 

Now,  sir,  I  intend  to  prove  that  the  only  argument  on 
which  the  gentleman  relies  on  this  point,  must  utterly  fail 


30  STATE  AND  NATION 

him.  I  do  not  intend  to  go  into  a  critical  examination  of  the 
expression  of  the  preamble  to  which  I  have  referred.  I  do 
not  deem  it  necessary.  But  if  it  were,  it  might  be  easily 
shown  that  it  is  at  least  as  applicable  to  my  view  of  the 
Constitution  as  to  that  of  the  Senator;  and  that  the  whole 
of  his  argument  on  this  point  rests  on  the  ambiguity  of 
the  term  thirteen  United  States;  which  may  mean  certain 
territorial  limits,  comprehending  within  them  the  whole 
of  the  States  and  Territories  of  the  Union.  In  this  sense, 
the  people  of  the  United  States  may  mean  all  the  people 
living  within  these  limits,  without  reference  to  the  States 
or  Territories  in  which  they  may  reside,  or  of  which  they 
may  be  citizens;  and  it  is  in  this  sense  only  that  the  ex 
pression  gives  the  least  countenance  to  the  argument  of 
the  Senator.1 

But  it  may  also  mean,  the  States  united,  which  inversion 
alone,  without  further  explanation,  removes  the  ambiguity 
to  which  I  have  referred.  The  expression,  in  this  sense,  obvi 
ously  means  no  more  than  to  speak  of  the  people  of  the 
several  States  in  their  united  and  confederated  capacity; 
and,  if  it  were  requisite,  it  might  be  shown  that  it  is  only 
in  this  sense  that  the  expression  is  used  in  the  Constitution. 
But  it  is  not  necessary.  A  single  argument  will  forever 
settle  this  point.  Whatever  may  be  the  true  meaning  of 
the  expression,  it  is  not  applicable  to  the  condition  of  the 
States  as  they  exist  under  the  Constitution,  but  as  it  was 
under  the  old  Confederation,  before  its  adoption.  The  Con 
stitution  had  not  yet  been  adopted,  and  the  States,  in  or 
daining  it,  could  only  speak  of  themselves  in  the  condition 
in  which  they  then  existed;  and  not  in  that  in  which  they 
would  exist  under  the  Constitution.  So  that,  if  the  argu- 

1  Calhoun  did  not  know  then,  as  he  did  later,  the  true  history  of  the 
opening  phrase  in  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution,  —  that  in  the  form 
framed  by  the  drafting  committee  the  names  of  the  States  were  enumer 
ated  and  that  this  form  was  modified  when  Article  VII  was  adopted. 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  31 

ment  of  the  Senator  proves  anything,  it  proves,  not  (as  he 
supposes)  that  the  Constitution  forms  the  American  people 
into  an  aggregate  mass  of  individuals,  but  that  such  was 
their  political  condition  before  its  adoption,  under  the  old 
Confederation,  directly  contrary  to  his  argument  in  the 
previous  part  of  this  discussion. 

But  I  intend  not  to  leave  this  important  point,  the  last 
refuge  of  those  who  advocate  consolidation,  even  on  this 
conclusive  argument.  I  have  shown  that  the  Constitution 
affords  not  the  least  evidence  of  the  mighty  change  of  the 
political  condition  of  the  States  and  the  country,  which  the 
Senator  supposed  it  effected;  and  I  intend  now,  by  the  most 
decisive  proof,  drawn  from  the  instrument  itself,  to  show 
that  no  such  change  was  intended,  and  that  the  people  of 
the  States  are  united  under  it  as  States  and  not  as  individ 
uals.  On  this  point  there  is  a  very  important  part  of  the 
Constitution  entirely  and  strangely  overlooked  by  the  Sen 
ator  in  this  debate,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  first  resolution, 
which  furnishes  conclusive  evidence  not  only  that  the  Con 
stitution  is  a  compact,  but  a  subsisting  compact,  binding 
between  the  States.  I  allude  to  the  seventh  article,  which 
provides  that  "the  ratification  of  the  conventions  of  nine 
States  shall  be  sufficient  for  the  establishment  of  this  Con 
stitution  between  the  States  so  ratifying  the  same."  Yes, 
"between  the  States."  These  little  words  mean  a  volume  — 
compacts,  not  laws,  bind  between  States;  and  it  here  binds, 
not  as  between  individuals,  but  between  the  States;  the 
States  ratifying;  implying,  as  strong  as  language  can  make 
it,  that  the  Constitution  is  what  I  have  asserted  it  to  be  — 
a  compact,  ratified  by  the  States,  and  a  subsisting  compact, 
binding  the  States  ratifying  it. 

But,  sir,  I  will  not  leave  this  point,  all-important  in  es 
tablishing  the  true  theory  of  our  Government,  on  this  argu 
ment,  as  demonstrative  and  conclusive  as  I  hold  it  to  be. 


32  STATE  AND  NATION 

Another,  not  much  less  powerful,  but  of  a  different  charac 
ter,  may  be  drawn  from  the  tenth  amended  article,  which 
provides  that  "the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United 
States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the 
States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively  or  to  the 
people."  The  article  of  ratification,  which  I  have  just  cited, 
informs  us  that  the  Constitution,  which  delegates  powers, 
was  ratified  by  the  States,  and  is  binding  between  them. 
This  informs  us  to  whom  the  powers  are  delegated,  —  a 
most  important  fact  in  determining  the  point  immediately 
at  issue  between  the  Senator  and  myself.  According  to  his 
views,  the  Constitution  created  a  union  between  individuals, 
if  the  solecism  may  be  allowed,  and  that  it  formed,  at  least 
to  the  extent  of  the  powers  delegated,  one  people,  and  not  a 
Federal  Union  of  the  States,  as  I  contend;  or,  to  express  the 
same  idea  differently,  that  the  delegation  of  powers  was  to 
the  American  people  in  the  aggregate  (for  it  is  only  by  such 
delegation  that  they  could  be  constituted  one  people),  and 
not  to  the  United  States,  —  directly  contrary  to  the  article 
just  cited,  which  declares  that  the  powers  are  delegated  to 
the  United  States.  And  here  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that 
the  Senator  cannot  shelter  himself  under  the  ambiguous 
phrase,  "to  the  people  of  the  United  States,"  under  which 
he  would  certainly  have  taken  refuge  had  the  Constitution 
so  expressed  it;  but  fortunately  for  the  cause  of  truth 
and  the  great  principles  of  constitutional  liberty  for  which 
I  am  contending,  "people"  is  omitted:  thus  making  the 
delegation  of  power  clear  and  unequivocal  to  the  United 
States,  as  distinct  political  communities,  and  conclusively 
proving  that  all  the  powers  delegated  are  reciprocally 
delegated  by  the  States  to  each  other,  as  distinct  political 
communities. 

So  much  for  the  delegated  powers.    Now,  as  all  admit, 
and  as  it  is  expressly  provided  for  in  the  Constitution,  the 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  33 

reserved  powers  are  reserved  "to  the  States  respectively,  or 
to  the  people."  None  will  pretend  that,  as  far  as  they  are 
concerned,  we  are  one  people,  though  the  argument  to 
prove  it,  however  absurd,  would  be  far  more  plausible  than 
that  which  goes  to  show  that  wTe  are  one  people  to  the  extent 
of  the  delegated  powers.  This  reservation  "to  the  people" 
might,  in  the  hands  of  subtle  and  trained  logicians,  be  a 
peg  to  hang  a  doubt  upon;  and  had  the  expression  "to  the 
people"  been  connected,  as  fortunately  it  is  not,  with  the 
delegated  instead  of  the  reserved  powers,  we  should  not 
have  heard  of  this  in  the  present  discussion. 

I  have  now  established,  I  hope,  beyond  the  power  of  con 
troversy,  every  allegation  contained  in  the  first  resolution 
—  that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  formed  by  the  people 
of  the  several  States,  as  distinct  political  communities,  and 
subsisting  and  binding  between  the  States  in  the  same 
character;  which  brings  me  to  the  consideration  of  the  con 
sequences  which  may  be  fairly  deduced,  in  reference  to 
the  character  of  our  political  system,  from  these  established 
facts. 

The  first,  and  most  important  is,  they  conclusively  es 
tablish  that  ours  is  a  federal  system  —  a  system  of  States 
arranged  in  a  Federal  Union,  each  retaining  its  distinct 
existence  and  sovereignty.  It  is  founded  on  compact;  it  is 
formed  by  sovereign  communities,  and  is  binding  between 
them  in  their  sovereign  capacity.  .  .  . 

If  we  compare  our  present  system  with  the  old  Confed 
eration,  which  all  acknowledge  to  have  been  federal  in  its 
character,  we  shall  find  that  it  possesses  all  the  attributes 
which  belong  to  that  form  of  government  as  fully  and  com 
pletely  as  that  did.  In  fact,  in  this  particular,  there  is  but 
a  single  difference,  and  that  not  essential,  as  regards  the 
point  immediately  under  consideration,  though  very  im 
portant  in  other  respects.  The  Confederation  was  the  act 


34  STATE  AND  NATION 

of  the  State  Government,  and  formed  a  union  of  Govern 
ments.  The  present  Constitution  is  the  act  of  the  States 
themselves,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  of  the  people  of 
the  several  States,  and  forms  a  union  of  them  as  sovereign 
communities.  The  States,  previous  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  were  as  separate  and  distinct  political  bodies 
as  the  Governments  which  represent  them,  and  there  is 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  things  to  prevent  them  from  unit 
ing  under  a  compact,  in  a  federal  union,  without  being 
blended  in  one  mass,  any  more  than  uniting  the  Govern 
ments  themselves,  in  like  manner,  without  merging  them 
in  a  single  Government.  To  illustrate  what  I  have  stated 
by  reference  to  ordinary  transactions,  the  Confederation 
was  a  contract  between  agents  —  the  present  Constitution 
a  contract  between  the  principals  themselves;  or,  to  take  a 
more  analogous  case,  one  is  a  league  made  by  ambassadors; 
the  other,  a  league  made  by  sovereigns  —  the  latter  no  more 
tending  to  unite  the  parties  into  a  single  sovereignty  than 
the  former.  The  only  difference  is  in  the  solemnity  of  the 
act  and  the  force  of  the  obligation. 

There,  indeed,  results  a  most  important  difference,  under 
our  theory  of  government,  as  to  the  nature  and  character 
of  the  act  itself,  whether  executed  by  the  States  themselves 
or  by  their  Governments ;  but  as  a  result,  as  I  have  already 
stated,  not  at  all  affecting  the  question  under  consideration, 
but  which  will  throw  much  light  on  a  subject,  in  relation 
to  which  I  must  think  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  has 
formed  very  confused  conceptions. 

The  Senator  dwelt  much  on  the  point  that  the  present 
system  is  a  constitution  and  a  government,  in  contradis 
tinction  to  the  old  Confederation,  with  a  view  of  proving 
that  the  Constitution  was  not  a  compact.  Now,  I  concede  to 
the  Senator  that  our  present  system  is  a  constitution  and  a 
government;  and  that  the  former,  the  old  Confederation, 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  35 

was  not  a  constitution  or  government:  not,  however,  for  the 
reason  which  he  assigned,  that  the  former  was  a  compact, 
and  the  latter  not,  but  from  the  difference  of  the  origin  from 
which  the  two  compacts  are  derived.  According  to  our 
American  conception,  the  people  alone  can  form  constitu 
tions  or  governments,  and  not  their  agents.  It  is  this  differ 
ence,  and  this  alone,  which  makes  the  distinction.  Had  the 
old  Confederation  been  the  act  of  the  people  of  the  several 
States,  and  not  of  their  Governments,  that  instrument,  im 
perfect  as  it  was,  would  have  been  a  constitution,  and  the 
agency  which  it  created  to  execute  its  powers,  a  govern 
ment.  This  is  the  true  cause  of  the  difference  between  the 
two  acts,  and  not  that,  in  regard  to  which  the  Senator  seems 
to  be  bewildered. 

There  is  another  point  on  which  this  difference  throws  im 
portant  light,  and  which  has  been  frequently  referred  to  in 
debate  on  this  and  former  occasions.  I  refer  to  the  expres 
sion  in  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution,  which  speaks  of 
"forming  a  more  perfect  union,"  and  in  the  letter  of  Gen 
eral  Washington,  laying  the  draft  of  the  Convention  be 
fore  the  old  Congress,  in  which  he  speaks  of  "consolidat 
ing  the  Union";  both  of  which  I  conceive  to  refer  simply 
to  the  fact  that  the  present  Union,  as  already  stated,  is  a 
union  between  the  States  themselves,  and  not  a  union  like 
that  which  had  existed  between  the  Governments  of  the 
States. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  consider  some  of  the  conclusions 
which  necessarily  follow  from  the  facts  and  positions  al 
ready  established.  They  enable  us  to  decide  a  question  of 
vital  importance  under  our  system:  WTiere  does  sovereignty 
reside?  If  I  have  succeeded  in  establishing  the  fact  that 
ours  is  a  federal  system,  as  I  conceive  I  conclusively  have, 
that  fact  of  itself  determines  the  question  which  I  have  pro 
posed.  It  is  of  the  very  essence  of  such  a  system  that  the 


36  STATE  AND  NATION 

sovereignty  is  in  the  parts,  and  not  in  the  whole;  or,  to  use 
the  language  of  Mr.  Palgrave,  the  parts  are  the  units  in  such 
a  system,  and  the  whole  the  multiple;  and  not  the  whole  the 
unit  and  the  parts  the  fraction.  Ours,  then,  is  a  government 
of  twenty-four  sovereignties,  united  by  a  constitutional 
compact,  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  certain  powers 
through  a  common  government  as  their  joint  agent,  and 
not  a  union  of  the  twenty-four  sovereignties  into  one,  which, 
according  to  the  language  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  al 
ready  cited,  would  form  a  consolidation.  And  here  I  must 
express  my  surprise  that  the  Senator  from  Virginia  should 
avow  himself  the  advocate  of  these  very  resolutions,  when 
he  distinctly  maintained  the  idea  of  the  union  of  the  States 
in  one  sovereignty,  which  is  expressly  condemned  by  those 
resolutions  as  the  essence  of  a  consolidated  government. 

Another  consequence  is  equally  clear,  that,  whatever 
modifications  were  made  in  the  condition  of  the  States 
under  the  present  Constitution,  they  extended  only  to  the 
exercise  of  their  powers  by  compact,  and  not  to  the  sov 
ereignty  itself,  and  are  such  as  sovereigns  are  competent  to 
make :  it  being  a  conceded  point  that  it  is  competent  to  them 
to  stipulate  to  exercise  their  powers  in  a  particular  manner, 
or  to  abstain  altogether  from  their  exercise,  or  to  delegate 
them  to  agents,  without  in  any  degree  impairing  sovereignty 
itself.  The  plain  state  of  the  facts  as  regards  our  Govern 
ment  is,  that  these  States  have  agreed  by  compact  to  exer 
cise  their  sovereign  powers  jointly,  as  already  stated;  and 
that,  for  this  purpose,  they  have  ratified  the  compact  in 
their  sovereign  capacity,  thereby  making  it  the  Constitu 
tion  of  each  State,  in  no  wise  distinguished  from  their  own 
separate  Constitutions,  but  in  the  superadded  obligation  of 
compact  —  of  faith  mutually  pledged  to  each  other.  In 
this  compact,  they  have  stipulated,  among  other  things, 
that  it  may  be  amended  by  three-fourths  of  the  States :  that 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  37 

is,  they  have  conceded  to  each  other  by  compact  the  right 
to  add  new  powers  or  to  subtract  old,  by  the  consent  of  that 
proportion  of  the  States,  without  requiring,  as  otherwise 
would  have  been  the  case,  the  consent  of  all :  a  modification 
no  more  inconsistent,  as  has  been  supposed,  with  their  sov 
ereignty,  than  any  other  contained  in  the  compact.  In  fact, 
the  provision  to  which  I  allude  furnishes  strong  evidence 
that  the  sovereignty  is,  as  I  contend,  in  the  States  sever 
ally,  as  the  amendments  are  effected,  not  by  any  one  three- 
fourths,  but  by  any  three-fourths  of  the  States,  indicating 
that  the  sovereignty  is  in  each  of  the  States. 

If  these  views  be  correct,  it  follows,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  the  allegiance  of  the  people  is  to  their  several  States, 
and  that  treason  consists  in  resistance  to  the  joint  authority 
of  the  States  united,  not,  as  has  been  absurdly  contended, 
in  resistance  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  which, 
by  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  has  only  the  right  of 
punishing.  .  .  . 

Having  now  said  what  I  intended  in  relation  to  my 
first  resolution,  both  in  reply  to  the  Senator  from  Mas 
sachusetts,  and  in  vindication  of  its  correctness,  I  will 
now  proceed  to  consider  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it 
in  the  second  resolution  —  that  the  General  Government 
is  not  the  exclusive  and  final  judge  of  the  extent  of  the 
powers  delegated  to  it,  but  that  the  States,  as  parties 
of  the  compact,  have  a  right  to  judge,  in  the  last  resort,  of 
the  infractions  of  the  compact,  and  of  the  mode  and  meas 
ure  of  redress. 

It  can  scarcely  be  necessary,  before  so  enlightened  a  body, 
to  premise  that  our  system  comprehends  two  distinct  gov 
ernments,  —  the  General  and  State  Governments,  —  which, 
properly  considered,  form  but  one;  the  former  representing 
the  joint  authority  of  the  States  in  their  confederate  capa 
city,  and  the  latter  that  of  each  State  separately.  I  have 


38  STATE  AND  NATION 

premised  this  fact  simply  with  a  view  of  presenting  dis 
tinctly  the  answer  to  the  argument  offered  by  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts  to  prove  that  the  General  Government 
has  a  final  and  exclusive  right  to  judge,  not  only  of  its  dele 
gated  powers,  but  also  of  those  reserved  to  the  States.  That 
gentleman  relies  for  his  main  argument  on  the  assertion 
that  a  government  —  which  he  defines  to  be  an  organized 
body,  endowed  with  both  will,  and  power,  and  authority 
in  proprio  vigore  to  execute  its  purpose  —  has  a  right  in 
herently  to  judge  of  its  powers.  It  is  not  my  intention  to 
comment  upon  the  definition  of  the  Senator,  though  it 
would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  his  ideas  of  government 
are  not  very  American.  My  object  is  to  deal  with  the  con 
clusion,  and  not  the  definition.  Admit,  then,  that  the  Gov 
ernment  has  the  right  of  judging  of  its  powers,  for  which  he 
contends.  How,  then,  will  he  withhold,  upon  his  own  prin 
ciple,  the  right  of  judging  from  the  State  Governments, 
which  he  has  attributed  to  the  General  Government?  If  it 
belongs  to  one,  on  his  principle  it  belongs  to  both ;  and  if  to 
both,  when  they  differ,  the  veto,  so  abhorred  by  the  Sena 
tor,  is  the  necessary  result:  as  neither,  if  the  right  be  pos 
sessed  by  both,  can  control  the  other. 

The  Senator  felt  the  force  of  this  argument,  and,  in  order 
to  sustain  his  main  position,  he  fell  back  on  that  clause  of 
the  Constitution  which  provides  that  "this  Constitution, 
and  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  shall  be  the  su 
preme  law  of  the  land.'* 

This  is  admitted  —  no  one  has  ever  denied  that  the  Con 
stitution,  and  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  of  it,  are  of  para 
mount  authority.  But  it  is  equally  undeniable  that  laws 
not  made  in  pursuance  are  not  only  not  of  paramount  au 
thority,  but  are  of  no  authority  whatever,  being  of  them 
selves  null  and  void;  which  presents  the  question,  Who 
are  to  judge  whether  the  laws  be  or  be  not  pursuant  to  the 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  39 

Constitution?  And  thus  the  difficulty,  instead  of  being 
taken  away,  is  removed  but  one  step  further  back.  This 
the  Senator  also  felt,  and  has  attempted  to  overcome,  by 
setting  up,  on  the  part  of  Congress  and  the  judiciary,  the 
final  and  exclusive  right  of  judging,  both  for  the  Federal 
Government  and  the  States,  as  to  the  extent  of  their  respec 
tive  powers.  That  I  may  do  full  justice  to  the  gentleman,  I 
will  give  his  doctrine  in  his  own  words.  He  states:  — 

That  there  is  a  supreme  law,  composed  of  the  constitution,  the 
laws  passed  in  pursuance  of  it,  and  the  treaties;  but  in  cases  com 
ing  before  Congress,  not  assuming  the  shape  of  cases  in  law  and 
equity,  so  as  to  be  subjects  of  judicial  discussion,  Congress  must 
interpret  the  constitution  so  often  as  it  has  occasion  to  pass  laws; 
and  in  cases  capable  of  assuming  a  judicial  shape,  the  Supreme 
Court  must  be  the  final  interpreter. 

Now,  passing  over  this  vague  and  loose  phraseology,  I 
would  ask  the  Senator  upon  what  principle  can  he  concede 
this  extensive  power  to  the  legislative  and  judicial  depart 
ments,  and  withhold  it  entirely  from  the  Executive?  If  one 
has  the  right  it  cannot  be  withheld  from  the  other.  I  would 
also  ask  him  on  what  principle  —  if  the  departments  of  the 
General  Government  are  to  possess  the  right  of  judging, 
finally  and  conclusively,  of  their  respective  powers  —  on 
what  principle  can  the  same  right  be  withheld  from  the 
State  Governments,  which,  as  well  as  the  General  Govern 
ment,  properly  considered,  are  but  departments  of  the  same 
general  system,  and  form  together,  properly  speaking,  but 
one  government?  This  was  a  favorite  idea  of  Mr.  Macon, 
for  whose  wisdom  I  have  a  respect  increasing  with  my  ex 
perience,  and  who  I  have  frequently  heard  say  that  most 
of  the  misconceptions  and  errors  in  relation  to  our  system 
originated  in  forgetting  that  they  were  but  parts  of  the  same 
system.  I  would  further  tell  the  Senator  that,  if  this  right 
be  withheld  from  the  State  Governments;  if  this  restraining 


40  STATE  AND  NATION 

influence,  by  which  the  General  Government  is  confined 
to  its  proper  sphere,  be  withdrawn,  then  that  department 
of  the  Government  from  which  he  has  withheld  the  right 
of  judging  of  its  own  powers  (the  Executive)  will,  so  far  from 
being  excluded,  become  the  sole  interpreter  of  the  powers 
of  the  Government.  It  is  the  armed  interpreter,  with  powers 
to  execute  its  own  construction,  and  without  the  aid  of 
which  the  construction  of  the  other  departments  will  be 
impotent. 

But  I  contend  that  the  States  have  a  far  clearer  right  to 
the  sole  construction  of  their  powers  than  any  of  the  depart 
ments  of  the  Federal  Government  can  have.  This  power  is 
expressly  reserved,  as  I  have  stated  on  another  occasion, 
not  only  against  the  several  departments  of  the  General 
Government,  but  against  the  United  States  themselves.  I 
will  not  repeat  the  arguments  which  I  then  offered  on  this 
point,  and  which  remain  unanswered,  but  I  must  be  per 
mitted  to  offer  strong  additional  proof  of  the  views  then 
taken,  and  which,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  are  conclusive  on 
this  point.  It  is  drawn  from  the  ratification  of  the  Consti 
tution  by  Virginia,  and  is  in  the  following  words :  — 

We,  the  delegates  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  duly  elected  in  pur 
suance  of  a  recommendation  from  the  General  Assembly,  and  now 
met  in  Convention,  having  fully  and  freely  investigated  and  dis 
cussed  the  proceedings  of  the  Federal  Convention,  and  being  pre 
pared,  as  well  as  the  most  mature  deliberation  hath  enabled  us, 
to  decide  thereon,  do,  in  the  name  and  in  behalf  of  the  people  of 
Virginia,  declare  and  make  known  that  the  powers  granted  under 
the  Constitution,  being  derived  from  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  may  be  resumed  by  them  whensoever  the  same  shall  be 
perverted  to  their  injury  or  oppression,  and  that  every  power  not 
granted  thereby  remains  with  them,  and  at  their  will;  that,  there 
fore,  no  right  of  any  denomination  can  be  cancelled,  abridged,  re 
strained,  or  modified  by  the  Congress,  by  the  Senate  or  House  of 
Representatives,  acting  in  any  capacity,  by  the  President  or  any 
department  or  officer  of  the  United  States,  except  in  those  in- 


THE   NATURE   OF  TIIE   UNION  41 

stances  in  which  power  is  given  by  the  Constitution  for  those  pur 
poses;  and  that,  among  other  essential  rights,  the  liberty  of  con 
science  and  of  the  press  cannot  be  cancelled,  abridged,  restrained, 
or  modified  by  any  authority  of  the  United  States.  With  these 
impressions,  with  a  solemn  appeal  to  the  searcher  of  all  hearts  for 
the  purity  of  our  intentions,  and  under  the  conviction  that  what 
soever  imperfections  may  exist  in  the  Constitution  ought  rather 
to  be  examined  in  the  mode  prescribed  therein,  than  to  bring  the 
Union  in  danger  by  a  delay,  with  the  hope  of  obtaining  amend 
ments  previous  to  the  ratification  —  we,  the  said  delegates,  in  the 
name  and  in  the  behalf  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  do  by  these  pre 
sents,  assent  to  and  ratify  the  Constitution  recommended  on  the 
17th  day  of  September,  1787,  by  the  Federal  Convention,  for  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  hereby  announcing  to  all  those 
whom  it  may  concern,  that  the  said  Constitution  is  binding  upon 
the  said  people,  according  to  an  authentic  copy  hereto  annexed, 
in  the  words  following,  etc. 

It  thus  appears  that  this  sagacious  State  (I  fear,  how 
ever,  that  her  sagacity  is  not  so  sharp-sighted  now  as  for 
merly)  ratified  the  Constitution,  with  an  explanation  as  to 
her  reserved  powers;  that  they  were  powers  subject  to  her 
own  will,  and  reserved  against  every  department  of  the 
General  Government  —  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial 
—  as  if  she  had  a  prophetic  knowledge  of  the  attempts 
now  made  to  impair  and  destroy  them:  which  explanation 
can  be  considered  in  no  other  light  than  as  containing  a  con 
dition  on  which  she  ratified,  and,  in  fact,  making  part  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  —  extending  as  well 
to  the  other  States  as  herself.  I  am  no  lawyer  and  it  may 
appear  to  be  presumption  in  me  to  lay  down  the  rule  of 
law  which  governs  in  such  cases,  in  a  controversy  with  so 
distinguished  an  advocate  as  the  Senator  from  Massachu 
setts.  But  I  shall  venture  to  lay  it  down  as  a  rule  in  such 
cases,  which  I  have  no  fear  that  the  gentleman  will  contra 
dict,  that,  in  case  of  a  contract  between  several  partners, 
if  the  entrance  of  one  on  condition  be  admitted,  the  concli- 


42  STATE  AND  NATION 

tion  enures  to  the  benefit  of  all  the  partners.  But  I  do  not 
rest  the  argument  simply  upon  this  view:  Virginia  proposed 
the  tenth  amended  article,  the  one  in  question,  and  her 
ratification  must  be  at  least  received  as  the  highest  evi 
dence  of  its  true  meaning  and  interpretation.  .  .  . 

I  have  now,  I  trust,  shown  satisfactorily  that  there  is 
no  provision  in  the  Constitution  to  authorize  the  General 
Government,  through  any  of  its  departments,  to  control  the 
action  of  a  State  within  the  sphere  of  its  reserved  powers, 
and  that,  of  course,  according  to  the  principle  laid  down  by 
the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  himself,  the  Government 
of  the  States,  as  well  as  the  General  Government,  has  the 
right  to  determine  the  extent  of  their  respective  powers, 
without  the  right  on  the  part  of  either  to  control  the  other. 
The  necessary  result  is  the  veto,  to  which  he  so  much  ob 
jects;  and  to  get  clear  of  which,  he  informs  us,  was  the  object 
for  which  the  present  Constitution  was  formed.  I  know  not 
whence  he  has  derived  his  information,  but  my  impression 
is  very  different  as  to  the  immediate  motives  which  led  to 
the  formation  of  that  instrument.  I  have  always  under 
stood  that  the  principle  was,  to  give  to  Congress  the  power 
to  regulate  commerce,  to  lay  impost  duties,  and  to  raise  a 
revenue  for  the  payment  of  the  public  debt  and  the  expenses 
of  the  Government;  and  to  subject  the  action  of  the  citizens 
individually  to  the  operation  of  the  laws,  as  a  substitute 
for  force.  If  the  object  had  been  to  get  clear  of  the  veto  of 
the  States,  as  the  Senator  states,  the  Convention  certainly 
performed  their  work  in  a  most  bungling  manner.  There 
was  unquestionably  a  large  party  in  that  body,  headed  by 
men  of  distinguished  talents  and  influence,  who  commenced 
early  and  worked  earnestly  to  the  last,  to  deprive  the  States 
—  not  directly,  for  that  would  have  been  too  bold  an  at 
tempt  —  but  indirectly  —  of  the  veto.  The  good  sense  of 
the  Convention,  however,  put  down  every  effort,  however 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  UNION  43 

disguised  and  perseveringly  made.  I  do  not  deem  it  neces 
sary  to  give,  from  the  journals,  the  history  of  these  various 
and  unsuccessful  attempts  —  though  it  would  afford  a  very 
instructive  lesson.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  it  was  at 
tempted  by  proposing  to  give  Congress  power  to  annul  the 
acts  of  the  States  which  they  might  deem  inconsistent  with 
the  Constitution;  to  give  to  the  President  the  power  of 
appointing  the  governors  of  the  States,  with  a  view  of  veto 
ing  state  laws  through  his  authority;  and,  finally,  to  give 
to  the  judiciary  the  power  to  decide  controversies  between 
the  States  and  the  General  Government :  all  of  which  failed 
—  fortunately  for  the  liberty  of  the  country  —  utterly  and 
entirely  failed;  and  in  their  failure  we  have  the  strongest 
evidence  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  Convention  to 
deprive  the  States  of  the  veto  power.  Had  the  attempt  to 
deprive  them  of  this  power  been  directly  made,  and  failed, 
every  one  would  have  seen  and  felt  that  it  would  furnish 
conclusive  evidence  in  favor  of  its  existence.  Now,  I  would 
ask,  What  possible  difference  can  it  make  in  what  form  this 
attempt  was  made?  whether  by  attempting  to  confer  on 
the  General  Government  a  power  incompatible  with  the 
exercise  of  the  veto  on  the  part  of  the  States,  or  by  attempt 
ing  directly  to  deprive  them  of  the  right  to  exercise  it?  We 
have  thus  direct  and  strong  proof  that,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  Convention,  the  States,  unless  deprived  of  it,  possess 
the  veto  power  —  or,  what  is  another  name  for  the  same 
thing,  the  right  of  nullification.  I  know  that  there  is  a  di 
versity  of  opinion  among  the  friends  of  State  Rights  in  re 
gard  to  this  power,  which  I  regret,  as  I  cannot  but  consider 
it  as  a  power  essential  to  the  protection  of  the  minor  and 
local  interests  of  the  community,  and  the  liberty  and  the 
union  of  the  country.  It  is  the  very  shield  of  State  Rights, 
and  the  only  power  by  which  that  system  of  injustice  against 
which  we  have  contended  for  more  than  thirteen  years  can 


44  STATE  AND  NATION 

be  arrested :  a  system  of  hostile  legislation  —  of  plundering 
by  law,  which  must  necessarily  lead  to  a  conflict  of  arms  if 
not  prevented. 

But  I  rest  the  right  of  a  State  to  judge  of  the  extent  of  its 
reserved  powers,  in  the  last  resort,  on  higher  grounds  — 
that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact,  to  which  the  States  are 
parties  in  their  sovereign  capacity;  and  that,  as  in  all  other 
cases  of  compact  between  parties  having  no  common  um 
pire,  each  has  a  right  to  judge  for  itself.  To  the  truth  of 
this  proposition  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  has  him 
self  assented,  if  the  Constitution  itself  be  a  compact  —  and 
that  it  is,  I  have  shown,  I  trust,  beyond  the  possibility  of 
a  doubt.  Having  established  this  point,  I  now  claim,  as  I 
stated  I  would  do  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  the  ad 
missions  of  the  Senator,  and,  among  them,  the  right  of  se 
cession  and  nullification,  which  he  conceded  would  neces 
sarily  follow  if  the  Constitution  be  indeed  a  compact. 


SECOND  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS1 
ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

FELLOW-COUNTRYMEN,  At  this  second  appearance  to 
take  the  oath  of  the  Presidential  office,  there  is  less  occasion 
for  an  extended  address  than  there  was  at  the  first.  Then  a 
statement,  somewhat  in  detail,  of  a  course  to  be  pursued, 
seemed  fitting  and  proper.  Now,  at  the  expiration  of  four 
years,  during  which  public  declarations  have  been  constantly 
called  forth  on  every  point  and  phase  of  the  great  contest 
which  still  absorbs  the  attention  and  engrosses  the  energies 
of  the  nation,  little  that  is  new  could  be  presented.  The  pro 
gress  of  our  arms,  upon  which  all  else  chiefly  depends,  is  as 
well  known  to  the  public  as  to  myself;  and  it  is,  I  trust,  rea 
sonably  satisfactory  and  encouraging  to  all.  With  high  hope 
for  the  future,  no  prediction  in  regard  to  it  is  ventured. 

On  the  occasion  corresponding  to  this  four  years  ago,  all 
thoughts  were  anxiously  directed  to  an  impending  civil  war. 
All  dreaded  it  —  all  sought  to  avert  it.  While  the  inaugural 
address  was  being  delivered  from  this  place,  devoted  al 
together  to  saving  the  Union  without  war,  insurgent  agents 
were  in  the  city  seeking  to  destroy  it  without  war  —  seeking 
to  dissolve  the  Union,  and  divide  effects,  by  negotiation. 
Both  parties  deprecated  war;  but  one  of  them  would  make 
war  rather  than  let  the  nation  survive;  and  the  other  would 
accept  war  rather  than  let  it  perish.  And  the  war  came. 

One-eighth  of  the  whole  population  were  colored  slaves, 
not  distributed  generally  over  the  Union,  but  localized  in 
the  Southern  part  of  it.  These  slaves  constituted  a  peculiar 
1  Delivered  at  the  Capitol,  March  4,  1865. 


46  STATE  AND  NATION 

and  powerful  interest.  All  knew  that  this  interest  was,  some 
how,  the  cause  of  the  war.  To  strengthen,  perpetuate,  and 
extend  this  interest  was  the  object  for  which  the  insurgents 
would  rend  the  Union,  even  by  war;  while  the  Government 
claimed  no  right  to  do  more  than  to  restrict  the  territorial 
enlargement  of  it. 

Neither  party  expected  for  the  war  the  magnitude  or  the 
duration  which  it  has  already  attained.  Neither  anticipated 
that  the  cause  of  the  conflict  might  cease  with,  or  even  before, 
the  conflict  itself  should  cease.  Each  looked  for  an  easier 
triumph,  and  a  result  less  fundamental  and  astounding. 
Both  read  the  same  Bible,  and  pray  to  the  same  God;  and 
each  invokes  his  aid  against  the  other.  It  may  seem  strange 
that  any  men  should  dare  to  ask  a  just  God's  assistance  in 
wringing  their  bread  from  the  sweat  of  other  men's  faces; 
but  let  us  judge  not,  that  we  be  not  judged.  The  prayers 
of  both  could  not  be  answered  —  that  of  neither  has  been 
answered  fully. 

The  Almighty  has  his  own  purposes.  "Woe  unto  the 
world  because  of  offenses !  for  it  must  needs  be  that  offenses 
come;  but  woe  to  that  man  by  whom  the  offense  cometh." 
If  we  shall  suppose  that  American  slavery  is  one  of  those 
offenses  which,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  must  needs  come, 
but  which,  having  continued  through  his  appointed  time,  he 
now  wills  to  remove,  and  that  he  gives  to  both  North  and 
South  this  terrible  war,  as  the  woe  due  to  those  by  whom 
the  offense  came,  shall  we  discern  therein  any  departure 
from  those  divine  attributes  which  the  believers  in  a  living 
God  always  ascribe  to  him?  Fondly  do  we  hope  —  fervently 
do  we  pray  —  that  this  mighty  scourge  of  war  may  speedily 
pass  away.  Yet,  if  God  wills  that  it  continue  until  all  the 
wealth  piled  by  the  bondman's  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
of  unrequited  toil  shall  be  sunk,  and  until  every  drop  of 
blood  drawn  with  the  lash  shall  be  paid  by  another  drawn 


SECOND  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS  47 

with  the  sword,  as  was  said  three  thousand  years  ago,  so  still 
it  must  be  said,  "The  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true  and 
righteous  altogether." 

^With  malice  toward  none;  with  charity  for  all;  with  firm 
ness  in  the  right,  as  God  gives  us  to  see  the  right,  let  us 
strive  on  to  finish  the  work  we  are  in;  to  bind  up  the  nation's 
wounds;  to  care  for  him  who  shall  have  borne  the  battle,  and 
for  his  widow,  and  his  orphan  —  to  do  all  which  may  achieve 
and  cherish  a  just  and  lasting  peace  among  ourselves,  and 
with  all  nations.  " 


HOW  TO  PRESERVE  THE  LOCAL  SELF- 
GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  STATES1 

ELIHU  ROOT 

THIS  gathering  peculiarly  represents  two  ancient  Com 
monwealths,  each  looking  back  to  a  century  and  a  half  of 
colonial  history  before  the  formation  of  the  American  Union, 
each  possessed  of  strong  individuality,  derived  from  the 
long  practice  of  self-government,  and  both  conspicuous 
among  all  the  States  for  leadership  in  population  and  wealth, 
for  commerce  and  manufacture,  for  art  and  science,  and  for 
the  priceless  traditions  of  great  citizens  in  former  genera 
tions.  It  seems  appropriate  to  make  here  some  observations 
upon  a  subject  which  is  much  in  the  minds  of  thoughtful 
Americans  in  these  days. 

What  is  to  be  the  future  of  the  States  of  the  Union  under 
our  dual  system  of  constitutional  government? 

The  conditions  under  which  the  clauses  of  the  Constitu 
tion  distributing  powers  to  the  National  and  State  Govern 
ments  are  now  and  henceforth  to  be  applied,  are  widely 
different  from  the  conditions  which  were  or  could  have  been 
within  the  contemplation  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
and  widely  different  from  those  which  obtained  during  the 
early  years  of  the  Republic.  When  the  authors  of  The  Feder 
alist  argued  and  expounded  the  reasons  for  union  and  the 
utility  of  the  provisions  contained  in  the  Constitution,  each 
separate  colony  transformed  into  a  State  was  complete  in 

1  A  speech  at  the  dinner  of  the  Pennsylvania  Society  in  New  York, 
December  12,  1900.  Reprinted,  through  the  generous  permission  of  the 
Harvard  University  Press,  from  Addresses  on  Government  and  Citizenship. 
(1916.)  ,- 


SELF-GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  STATES  49 

itself  and  sufficient  to  itself,  except  as  to  a  few  exceedingly 
simple  external  relations  of  State  to  State  and  to  foreign 
nations ;  from  the  origin  of  production  to  the  final  consump 
tion  of  the  product,  from  the  birth  of  a  citizen  to  his  death, 
the  business,  the  social  and  the  political  life  of  each  separate 
community  began  and  ended,  for  the  most  part,  within  the 
limits  of  the  State  itself;  the  long  time  required  for  travel 
and  communications  between  the  different  centers  of  popu 
lation,  the  difficulties  and  hardships  of  long  and  laborious 
journeys,  the  slowness  of  the  mails,  and  the  enormous  cost  of 
transporting  goods,  kept  the  people  of  each  State  tributary 
to  their  own  separate  colonial  center  of  trade  and  influence, 
and  kept  their  activities  within  the  ample  and  sufficient 
jurisdiction  of  the  local  laws  of  their  State.  The  fear  of  the 
fathers  of  the  Republic  was  that  these  separate  and  self- 
sufficient  communities  would  fall  apart,  that  the  Union 
would  resolve  into  its  constituent  elements,  or  that,  as  it 
grew  in  population  and  area,  it  would  split  up  into  a  number 
of  separate  confederacies.  Few  of  the  men  of  1787  would 
have  deemed  it  possible  that  the  Union  they  were  forming 
could  be  maintained  among  eighty-five  millions  of  people, 
spread  over  the  vast  expanse  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific 
and  from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf. 

Three  principal  causes  have  made  this  possible. 

One  cause  has  been  the  growth  of  a  National  sentiment, 
which  was  at  first  almost  imperceptible.  The  very  difficul 
ties  and  hardships  to  which  our  Nation  was  subjected  in  its 
early  years,  the  injuries  to  our  commerce,  and  the  insults 
and  indignities  to  our  flag  on  the  part  of  both  of  the  con 
testants  in  the  great  Napoleonic  wars,  served  to  keep  the 
Nation  and  National  interests  and  National  dignity  con 
stantly  before  the  minds  and  in  the  feelings  of  the  people. 
As  the  tide  of  emigration  swept  westward,  new  States  were 
formed  of  citizens  who  looked  back  to  the  older  States  as  the 


50  STATE  AND  NATION 

homes  of  their  childhood  and  their  affection  and  the  origin 
of  their  laws  and  customs,  and  who  never  had  the  peculiar 
and  special,  separate  political  life  of  the  colonies.  The  Civil 
War  settled  the  supremacy  of  the  Nation  throughout  the 
territory  of  the  Union,  and  its  sacrifices  sanctified  and  made 
enduring  that  National  sentiment.  Our  country  as  a  whole, 
the  noble  and  beloved  land  of  every  citizen  of  every  State, 
has  become  the  object  of  pride  and  devotion  among  all  our 
people,  North  and  South,  within  the  limits  of  the  proud  old 
colonial  Commonwealths,  throughout  the  vast  region  where 
Burr  once  dreamed  of  a  separate  empire  dominating  the 
valley  of  the  Mississippi,  and  upon  the  far-distant  shores  of 
the  Pacific;  and  by  the  side  of  this  strong  and  glowing  loyalty 
to  the  Nation,  sentiment  for  the  separate  States  has  be 
come  dim  and  faint  in  comparison. 

The  second  great  influence  has  been  the  knitting  together, 
in  ties  of  common  interest,  of  the  people  forming  the  once 
separate  communities  through  the  working  of  free^  trade 
among^the  States.  £fcver  was  a  concession,  dictated  by 
enlightened  judgment  for  the  common  benefit,  more  richly 
repaid  than  that  by  which  the  States  surrendered  in  the 
Federal  Constitution  the  right  to  lay  imposts  or  duties  on 
imports  or  exports  without  the  consent  of  Congress.  To  it  we 
owe  the  domestic  market  for  the  products  of  our  farms  and 
forests  and  mines  and  factories  without  a  parallel  in  history, 
and  an  internal  trade  which  already  exceeds  the  entire  for 
eign  trade  of  all  the  rest  of  the  world;  and  to  it  we  owe  in  a 
high  degree  the  constant  drawing  together  of  all  parts  of  our 
vast  and  diversified  country  in  the  bonds  of  common  in 
terest  and  in  the  improving  good  understanding  and  kindly 
feeling  of  frequent  intercourse. 

The  third  great  cause  of  change  is  the  marvelous  develop 
ment  of  facilities  for  travel  and  communication  produced 
by  the  inventions  and  discoveries  of  the  past  century.  The 


SELF-GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  STATES  51 

swift  trains  that  pass  over  our  two  hundred  and  twenty 
thousand  miles  of  railroad,  the  seventy  millions  of  messages 
that  flash  over  the  more  than  fourteen  hundred  thousand 
miles  of  telegraph  wires,  the  conversations  across  the  vast 
spaces  through  our  more  than  four  million  four  hundred 
thousand  telephone  instruments,  take  no  note  of  State 
lines;  they  have  broken  down  the  barriers  between  the  sepa 
rate  communities  and  they  have  led  to  a  reorganization  of 
the  business  and  social  life  of  the  people  of  the  United  States 
along  lines  which,  for  the  most  part,  altogether  ignore  the 
boundaries  of  the  States.  I  left  the  borders  of  Virginia  this 
afternoon  and  traversed  Maryland,  Delaware,  Pennsylva 
nia,  and  New  Jersey  to  the  State  of  New  York,  and,  bar 
ring  accident,  I  shall  breakfast  to-morrow  morning  again 
on  the  shore  of  the  Potomac.  The  time  required  for  this 
journey  would  hardly  have  sufficed  for  an  ordinary  carriage 
drive  from  the  adjoining  County  of  Westchester  a  hundred 
years  ago.  Any  one  of  us  can  go  now  into  a  neighboring  room 
in  this  hotel  and  talk  with  a  friend  in  Boston  or  Chicago  and 
recognize  his  voice  and  transact  business  which  formerly 
would  have  required  months  to  accomplish,  if  it  could  have 
been  done  at  all.  The  lines  of  trade,  of  financial  operation, 
of  social  intercourse,  of  thought  and  opinion  that  radiate 
from  the  great  centers  of  life  in  our  country  such  as  Boston 
and  New  York,  and  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  and  Chi 
cago  and  St.  Louis,  and  New  Orleans  and  San  Francisco, 
and  many  another  great  city,  are  perfectly  regardless  of 
State  distinctions.  Our  whole  life  has  swung  away  from  the 
old  State  centers  and  is  crystallizing  about  National  centers; 
the  farmer  harvests  his  grain  and  fattens  his  cattle,  not  as 
formerly,  with  reference  to  the  wants  of  his  own  home  com 
munity,  but  for  markets  thousands  of  miles  away;  the  man 
ufacturer  operates  his  mills  and  his  factories  to  meet  the 
needs  of  far-distant  consumers;  the  merchant  has  his  cus- 


52  STATE  AND  NATION 

tomers  in  many  States;  all  —  the  farmer,  the  manufacturer, 
the  merchant,  the  laborer  —  look  for  the  supplies  of  their 
food  and  clothing,  not  to  the  resources  of  the  home  farm,  or 
village,  but  to  the  resources  of  the  whole  continent.  The 
people  move  in  great  throngs  to  and  fro  from  State  to  State 
and  across  States;  the  important  news  of  each  community  is 
read  at  every  breakfast- table  throughout  the  country;  the 
interchange  of  thought  and  sentiment  and  information  is 
universal;  in  the  wide  range  of  daily  life  and  activity  and  in 
terest  the  old  lines  between  the  States  and  the  old  barriers 
which  kept  the  States  as  separate  communities  are  com 
pletely  lost  from  sight.  The  growth  of  National  habits  in 
the  daily  life  of  a  homogeneous  people  keeps  pace  with  the 
growth  of  National  sentiment. 

Such  changes  in  the  life  of  the  people  cannot  fail  to  pro 
duce  corresponding  political  changes.  Some  of  those  changes 
can  be  plainly  seen  now  in  progress^  It  is  plainly  to  be  seen 
that  the  people  of  the  country  are  coming  to  the  conclusion 
that  in  certain  important  respects  the  local  laws  of  the  sepa 
rate  States,  which  were  adequate  for  the  due  and  just  regu 
lation  and  control  of  the  business  which  was  transacted,  and 
the  activity  which  began  and  ended  within  the  limits  of  the 
several  States,  are  inadequate  for  the  due  and  just  control 
of  the  business  and  activities  which  extend  throughout  all 
the  States,  and  that  such  power  of  regulation  and  control  is 
gradually  passing  into  the  hands  of  the  National  Govern 
ment.  Sometimes  by  an  assertion  of  the  interstate  com 
merce  power,  sometimes  by  an  assertion  of  the  taxing  power, 
the  National  Government  is  taking  up  the  performance  of 
duties  which  under  the  changed  conditions  the  separate 
States  are  no  longer  capable  of  adequately  performing.  The 
Federal  Anti-Trust  Law,  the  Anti-Rebate  Law,  the  Rail 
road  Rate  Law,  the  Meat-Inspection  Law,  the  Oleomar 
garine  Law,  the  Pure-Food  Law,  are  examples  of  the  pur- 


SELF-GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  STATES          53 

pose  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  do  through  the 
agency  of  the  National  Government  the  things  which  the 
separate  State  Governments  formerly  did  adequately  but 
no  longer  do  adequately.  The  end  is  not  yet.  The  process 
that  interweaves  the  life  and  action  of  the  people  in  every 
section  of  our  country  with  the  people  in  every  other  section, 
continues  and  will  continue  with  increasing  force  and  effect; 
we  are  urging  forward  in  a  development  of  business  and  so 
cial  life  which  tends  more  and  more  to  the  obliteration  of 
State  lines  and  the  decrease  of  State  power  as  compared  with 
National  power;  the  relations  of  the  business  over  which 
the  Federal  Government  is  assuming  control,  of  interstate 
transportation  with  State  transportation,  of  interstate  com 
merce  with  State  commerce,  are  so  intimate  and  the  sepa 
ration  of  the  two  is  so  impracticable,  that  the  tendency  is 
plainly  toward  the  practical  control  of  the  National  Gov 
ernment  over  both.  New  projects  of  National  control  are 
mooted;  control  of  insurance,  uniform  divorce  laws,  child- 
labor  laws,  and  many  others  affecting  matters  formerly  en 
tirely  within  the  cognizance  of  the  States  are  proposed. 

With  these  changes  and  tendencies,  in  what  way  can  the 
power  of  the  States  be  preserved? 

I  submit  to  your  judgment,  and  I  desire  to  press  upon  you 
with  all  the  earnestness  I  possess,  that  there  is  but  one  way 
in  which  the  States  of  the  Union  can  maintain  their  power 
and  authority  under  the  conditions  which  are  now  before  us, 
and  that  way  is  by  an  awakening  on  the  part  of  the  States 
to  a  realization  of  their  own  duties  to  the  country  at  large. 
Under  the  conditions  which  now  exist,  no  State  can  live  unto 
itself  alone,  and  regulate  its  affairs  with  sole  reference  to  its 
own  treasury,  its  own  convenience,  its  own  special  interests. 
Every  State  is  bound  to  frame  its  legislation  and  its  admin 
istration  with  reference  not  only  to  its  own  special  affairs, 
but  with  reference  to  the  effect  upon  all  its  sister  States,  as 


54  STATE  AND  NATION 

every  individual  is  found  to  regulate  his  conduct  with  some 
reference  to  its  effect  upon  his  neighbors.  The  more  popu 
lous  the  community  and  the  closer  individuals  are  brought 
together,  the  more  imperative  becomes  the  necessity  which 
constrains  and  limits  individual  conduct.  If  any  State  is 
maintaining  laws  which  afford  opportunity  and  authority 
for  practices  condemned  by  the  public  sense  of  the  whole 
country,  or  laws  which,  through  the  operation  of  our  mod 
ern  system  of  communications  and  business,  are  injurious 
to  the  interests  of  the  whole  country,  that  State  is  violating 
the  conditions  upon  which  alone  its  power  can  be  preserved. 
If  any  State  maintains  laws  which  promote  and  foster  the 
enormous  overcapitalization  of  corporations  condemned  by 
the  people  of  the  country  generally;  if  any  State  maintains 
laws  designed  to  make  easy  the  formation  of  trusts  and  the 
creation  of  monopolies;  if  any  State  maintains  laws  which 
permit  conditions  of  child  labor  revolting  to  the  sense  of 
mankind;  if  any  State  maintains  laws  of  marriage  and  di 
vorce  so  far  inconsistent  with  the  general  standard  of  the 
Nation  as  violently  to  derange  the  domestic  relations,  which 
the  majority  of  the  States  desire  to  preserve,  that  State  is 
promoting  the  tendency  of  the  people  of  the  country  to  seek 
relief  through  the  National  Government  and  to  press  for 
ward  the  movement  for  National  Control  and  the  extinction 
of  local  control.  The  intervention  of  the  National  Govern 
ment  in  many  of  the  matters  which  it  has  recently  under 
taken  would  have  been  wholly  unnecessary  if  the  States 
themselves  had  been  alive  to  their  duty  toward  the  general 
body  of  the  country. 

It  is  useless  for  the  advocates  of  State  rights  to  inveigh 
against  the  supremacy  of  the  constitutional  laws  of  the 
United  States  or  against  the  extension  of  National  authority 
in  the  fields  of  necessary  control  where  the  States  themselves 
fail  in  the  performance  of  their  duty.  The  instinct  for  self- 


SELF-GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  STATES  55 

government  among  the  people  of  the  United  States  is  too 
strong  to  permit  them  long  to  respect  any  one's  right  to  ex 
ercise  a  power  which  he  fails  to  exercise.  The  governmental 
control  which  they  deem  just  and  necessary  they  will  have. 
It  may  be  that  such  control  would  better  be  exercised  in 
particular  instances  by  the  Governments  of  the  States,  but 
the  people  will  have  the  control  they  need,  either  from  the 
States  or  from  the  National  Government;  and  if  the  States 
fail  to  furnish  it  in  due  measure,  sooner  or  later  construc 
tions  of  the  Constitution  will  be  found  to  vest  the  power 
where  it  will  be  exercised  —  in  the  National  Government. 
The  true  and  only  way  to  preserve  State  authority  is  to  be 
found  in  the  awakened  conscience  of  the  States,  their  broad 
ened  views  and  higher  standard  of  responsibility  to  the 
general  public;  in  effective  legislation  by  the  States  in  con 
formity  to  the  general  moral  sense  of  the  country;  and  in 
the  vigorous  exercise  for  the  general  public  good  of  that 
State  authority  which  is  to  be  preserved. 


Ill 

AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 


FIRST  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS ' 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON 

FRIENDS  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS:  Called  upon  to  under 
take  the  duties  of  the  first  executive  office  of  our  country,  I 
avail  myself  of  the  presence  of  that  portion  of  my  fellow- 
citizens  which  is  here  assembled  to  express  my  grateful 
thanks  for  the  favor  with  which  they  have  been  pleased  to 
look  toward  me,  to  declare  a  sincere  consciousness  that  the 
task  is  above  my  talents,  and  that  I  approach  it  with  those 
anxious  and  awful  presentiments  which  the  greatness  of  the 
charge  and  the  weakness  of  my  powers  so  justly  inspire.  A 
rising  nation,  spread  over  a  wide  and  fruitful  land,  travers 
ing  all  the  seas  with  the  rich  productions  of  their  industry, 
engaged  in  commerce  with  nations  who  feel  power  and  for 
get  right,  advancing  rapidly  to  destinies  beyond  the  reach 
of  mortal  eye  —  when  I  contemplate  these  transcendent  ob 
jects,  and  see  the  honor,  the  happiness,  and  the  hopes  of  this 
beloved  country  committed  to  the  issue  and  the  auspices  of 
this  day,  I  shrink  from  the  contemplation,  and  humble  my 
self  before  the  magnitude  of  the  undertaking.  Utterly,  in 
deed,  should  I  despair  did  not  the  presence  of  many  whom  I 
here  see  remind  me  that  in  the  other  high  authorities  pro 
vided  by  our  Constitution  I  shall  find  resources  of  wisdom, 
of  virtue,  and  of  zeal  on  which  to  rely  under  all  difficulties. 
To  you,  then,  gentlemen,  who  are  charged  with  the  sovereign 
functions  of  legislation,  and  to  those  associated  with  you, 
I  look  with  encouragement  for  that  guidance  and  support 
which  may  enable  us  to  steer  with  safety  the  vessel  in  which 

1  Delivered  at  Washington,  D.C.,  March  4,  1801. 


60  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

we  are  all  embarked  amidst  the  conflicting  elements  of  a 
troubled  world. 

During  the  contest  of  opinion  through  which  we  have 
passed,  the  animation  of  discussion  and  of  exertions  has 
sometimes  worn  an  aspect  which  might  impose  on  strangers 
unused  to  think  freely  and  to  speak  and  to  write  what  they 
think;  but  this  being  now  decided  by  the  voice  of  the  nation, 
announced  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Constitution,  all 
will,  of  course,  arrange  themselves  under  the  will  of  thelaw, 
and  unite  in  common  efforts  for  the  common  good.)  All, 
too,  will  bear  in  mind  this  sacred  principle,  that  though  the 
will  of  the  majority  is  in  all  cases  to  prevail,  that  will,  to  be 
rightful,  must  be  reasonable;  that  the  minority  possess  their 
equal  rights,  which  equal  law  must  protect,  and  to  violate 
which  would  be  oppression.  Let  us,  then,  fellow-citizens, 
unite  with  one  heart  and  one  mind.  Let  us  restore  to  social 
intercourse  that  harmony  and  affection  without  which  lib 
erty  and  even  life  itself  are  but  dreary  things.  And  let  us  re 
flect  that,  having  banished  from  our  land  that  religious  intol 
erance  under  which  mankind  so  long  bled  and  suffered,  we 
have  yet  gained  little  if  we  countenance  a  political  intoler 
ance  as  despotic,  as  wicked,  and  capable  of  as  bitter  and 
bloody  persecutions.  During  the  throes  and  convulsions  of 
the  ancient  world,  during  the  agonizing  spasms  of  infuri 
ated  man  seeking  through  blood  and  slaughter  his  long-lost 
liberty,  it  was  not  wonderful  that  the  agitation  of  the  billows 
should  reach  even  this  distant  and  peaceful  shore;  that  this 
should  be  more  felt  and  feared  by  some  and  less  by  others, 
and  should  divide  opinions  as  to  measures  of  safety.  But 
every  difference  of  opinion  is  not  a  difference  of  principle. 
We  have  called  by  different  names  brethren  of  the  same 
principle.  We  are  all  Republicans,  we  are  all  Federalists. 
If  there  be  any  among  us  who  would  wish  to  dissolve  this 
Union  or  to  change  its  republican  form,  let  them  stand  un- 


FIRST  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS  61 

disturbed  as  monuments  of  the  safety  with  which  error  of 
opinion  may  be  tolerated  where  reason  is  left  free  to  combat 
it.  I  know,  indeed,  that  some  honest  men  fear  that  a  re 
publican  government  cannot  be  strong,  that  this  Govern 
ment  is  not  strong  enough;  but  would  the  honest  patriot, 
in  the  full  tide  of  successful  experiment,  abandon  a  govern 
ment  which  has  so  far  kept  us  free  and  firm,  on  the  theoretic 
and  visionary  fear  that  this  Government,  the  world's  best 
hope,  may  by  possibility  want  energy  to  preserve  itself?  I 
trust  not.  I  believe  this,  on  the  contrary,  the  strongest  Gov 
ernment  on  earth.  I  believe  it  the  only  one  where  every 
man,  at  the  call  of  the  law,  would  fly  to  the  standard  of  the 
law,  and  would  meet  invasions  of  the  public  order  as  his  own 
personal  concern.  Sometimes  it  is  said  that  man  cannot  be 
trusted  with  the  government  of  himself.  Can  he,  then,  be 
trusted  with  the  government  of  others?  Or  have  we  found 
angels  in  the  forms  of  kings  to  govern  him?  Let  history  an 
swer  this  question^ 

Let  us,  then,  with  courage  and  confidence  pursue  our  own 
Federal  and  Republican  principles,  our  attachment  to  union 
and  representative  government.  Kindly  separated  by  na 
ture  and  a  wide  ocean  from  the  exterminating  havoc  of  one 
quarter  of  the  globe;  too  high-minded  to  endure  the  degra 
dations  of  the  others;  possessing  a  chosen  country,  with 
room  enough  for  our  descendants  to  the  thousandth  and 
thousandth  generation;  entertaining  a  due  sense  of  our 
equal  right  to  the  use  of  our  own  faculties,  to  the  acquisi 
tions  of  our  own  industry,  to  honor  and  confidence  from  our 
fellow-citizens,  resulting  not  from  birth,  but  from  our  ac 
tions  and  their  sense  of  them;  enlightened  by  a  benign  re 
ligion,  professed,  indeed,  and  practiced  in  various  forms,  yet 
all  of  them  inculcating  honesty,  truth,  temperance,  grati 
tude,  and  the  love  of  man;  acknowledging  and  adoring  an 
overruling  Providence,  which  by  all  its  dispensations  proves 


62  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

that  it  delights  in  the  happiness  of  man  here  and  his  greater 
happiness  hereafter  —  with  all  these  blessings,  what  more 
is  necessary  to  make  us  a  happy  and  a  prosperous  people? 
Still  one  thing  more,  fellow-citizens  —  a  wise  and  frugal 
Government,  which  shall  restrain  men  from  injuring  one 
another,  shall  leave  them  otherwise  free  to  regulate  their 
own  pursuits  of  industry  and  improvement,  and  shall  not 
take  from  the  mouth  of  labor  the  bread  it  has  earned.  This 
is  the  sum  of  good  government,  and  this  is  necessary  to 
close  the  circle  of  our  felicities. 

About  to  enter,  fellow-citizens,  on  the  exercise  of  duties 
which  comprehend  everything  dear  and  valuable  to  you,  it  is 
proper  that  you  should  understand  what  I  deem  the  essential 
principle  of  our  Government,  and  consequently  those  which 
ought  to  shape  its  Administration.  I  will  compress  them 
within  the  narrowest  compass  they  will  bear,  stating  the 
general  principle,  but  not  all  its  limitations.  Equal  and 
exact  justice  to  all  men,  of  whatever  state  or  persuasion, 
religious  or  political;  peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friend 
ship  with  all  nations,  entangling  alliances  with  none;  the 
support  of  the  State  governments  in  all  their  rights,  as  the 
most  competent  administrations  for  our  domestic  concerns 
and  the  surest  bulwarks  against  anti-republican  tendencies; 
the  preservation  of  the  Central  Government  in  its  whole 
constitutional  vigor,  as  the  sheet  anchor  of  our  peace  at 
home  and  safety  abroad;  a  jealous  care  of  the  right  of  elec 
tion  by  the  people  —  a  mild  and  safe  corrective  of  abuses 
which  are  lopped  by  the  sword  of  revolution  where  peaceable 
remedies  are  unprovided;  absolute  acquiescence  in  the  de 
cisions  of  the  majority,  the  vital  principle  of  republics,  from 
which  is  no  appeal  but  to  force,  the  vital  principle  and  im 
mediate  parent  of  despotism;  a  well-disciplined  militia,  our 
best  reliance  in  peace  and  for  the  first  moments  of  war,  till 
regulars  may  relieve  them;  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  over 


FIRST  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS  63 

the  military  authority;  economy  in  the  public  expense,  that 
labor  may  be  lightly  burthened;  the  honest  payment  of  our 
debts  and  sacred  preservation  of  the  public  faith;  encourage 
ment  of  agriculture,  and  of  commerce  as  its  handmaid;  the 
diffusion  of  information  and  the  arraignment  of  all  abuses 
at  the  bar  of  the  public  reason;  freedom  of  religion;  freedom 
of  the  press,  and  freedom  of  person  under  the  protection  of 
the  habeas  corpus;  and  trial  by  juries  impartially  selected. 
These  principles  form  the  bright  constellation  which  has 
gone  before  us  and  guided  our  steps  through  an  age  of  revo 
lution  and  reformation.  The  wisdom  of  our  sages  and  blood 
of  our  heroes  have  been  devoted  to  their  attainment.  They 
should  be  the  creed  of  our  political  faith,  the  text  of  civic 
instruction,  the  touchstone  by  which  to  try  the  services  of 
those  we  trust;  and  should  we  wander  from  them  in  mo 
ments  of  error  or  of  alarm,  let  us  hasten  to  retrace  our  steps 
and  to  regain  the  road  which  alone  leads  to  peace,  liberty, 
and  safety.  ^^^^ 

I  repair,  then,  fellow-citizens,  to  the  post  you  have  as 
signed  me.  With  experience  enough  in  subordinate  offices 
to  have  seen  the  difficulties  of  this,  the  greatest  of  all,  I  have 
learnt  to  expect  that  it  will  rarely  fall  to  the  lot  of  imperfect 
man  to  retire  from  this  station  with  the  reputation  and  the 
favor  which  bring  him  into  it.  Without  pretensions  to  that 
high  confidence  you  reposed  in  our  first  and  greatest  revolu 
tionary  character,  whose  preeminent  services  had  entitled 
him  to  the  first  place  in  his  country's  love  and  destined  for 
him  the  fairest  page  in  the  volume  of  faithful  history,  I  ask 
so  much  confidence  only  as  may  give  firmness  and  effect  to 
the  legal  administration  of  your  affairs.  I  shall  often  go  wrong 
through  defect  of  judgment.  When  right,  I  shall  often  be 
thought  wrong  by  those  whose  positions  will  not  command  a 
view  of  the  whole  ground.  I  ask  your  indulgence  for  my  own 
errors,  which  will  never  be  intentional,  and  your  support 


64  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

against  the  errors  of  others,  who  may  condemn  what  they 
would  not  if  seen  in  all  its  parts.  The  approbation  implied  by 
your  suffrage  is  a  great  consolation  to  me  for  the  past,  and 
my  future  solicitude  will  be  to  retain  the  good  opinion  of 
those  who  have  bestowed  it  in  advance,  to  conciliate  that  of 
others  by  doing  them  all  the  good  in  my  power,  and  to  be  in 
strumental  to  the  happiness  and  freedom  of  all. 

Relying,  then,  on  the  patronage  of  your  good-will,  I  ad 
vance  with  obedience  to  the  work,  ready  to  retire  from  it 
whenever  you  become  sensible  how  much  better  choice  it  is 
in  your  power  to  make.  And  may  that  Infinite  Power  which 
rules  the  destinies  of  the  universe  lead  our  councils  to  what 
is  best,  and  give  them  a  favorable  issue  for  your  peace  and 
prosperity. 


GETTYSBURG  ADDRESS1 
ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

FOURSCORE  and  seven  years  ago  our  fathers  brought  forth 
on  this  continent  a  new  nation,  conceived  in  liberty,  and 
dedicated  to  the  proposition  that  all  men  are  created  equal. 

Now  we  are  engaged  in  a  great  civil  war,  testing  whether 
that  nation,  or  any  nation  so  conceived  and  so  dedicated, 
can  long  endure.  We  are  met  on  a  great  battle-field  of  that 
war.  We  have  come  to  dedicate  a  portion  of  that  field  as  a 
final  resting-place  for  those  who  here  gave  their  lives  that 
that  nation  might  live.  It  is  altogether  fitting  and  proper 
that  we  should  do  this. 

But,  in  a  larger  sense  we  cannot  dedicate  —  we  cannot 
consecrate  —  we  cannot  hallow  —  this  ground.  The  brave 
men,  living  and  dead,  who  struggled  here,  have  consecrated 
it  far  above  our  poor  power  to  add  or  detract.  The  world 
will  little  note  nor  long  remember  what  we  say  here,  but  it 
can  never  forget  what  they  did  here.  It  is  for  us,  the  living, 
rather,  to  be  dedicated  here  to  the  unfinished  work  which 
they  who  fought  here  have  thus  far  so  nobly  advanced.  It 
is  rather  for  us  to  be  here  dedicated  to  the  great  task  remain 
ing  before  us  —  that  from  these  honored  dead  we  take  in 
creased  devotion  to  that  cause  for  which  they  gave  the  last 
full  measure  of  devotion;  that  we  here  highly  resolve  that 
these  dead  shall  not  have  died  in  vain;  that  this  nation, 
under  God,  shall  have  a  new  birth  of  freedom;  and  that 
'  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the  people, 
shall  not  perish  from  the  earth. 

1  Delivered  at  Gettysburg,  Pennsylvania,  November  19,  1863.  j 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN ' 
RALPH  WALDO  EMERSON 

WE  meet  under  the  gloom  of  a  calamity  which  darkens 
down  over  the  minds  of  good  men  in  all  civil  society,  as  the 
fearful  tidings  travel  over  sea,  over  land,  from  country  to 
country,  like  the  shadow  of  an  uncalculated  eclipse  over  the 
planet.  Old  as  history  is,  and  manifold  as  are  its  tragedies, 
I  doubt  if  any  death  has  caused  so  much  pain  to  mankind 
as  this  has  caused,  or  will  cause,  on  its  announcement;  and 
this,  not  so  much  because  nations  are  by  modern  arts  brought 
so  closely  together,  as  because  of  the  mysterious  hopes  and 
fears  which,  in  the  present  day,  are  connected  with  the  name 
and  institutions  of  America. 

In  this  country,  on  Saturday,  every  one  was  struck  dumb, 
and  saw  at  first  only  deep  below  deep,  as  he  meditated  on 
the  ghastly  blow.  And  perhaps,  at  this  hour,  when  the  coffin 
which  contains  the  dust  of  the  President  sets  forward  on  its 
long  march  through  mourning  States,  on  its  way  to  his  home 
in  Illinois,  we  might  well  be  silent,  and  suffer  the  awful  voices 
of  the  time  to  thunder  to  us.  Yes,  but  that  first  despair  was 
brief:  the  man  was  not  so  to  be  mourned.  He  was  the  most 
active  and  hopeful  of  men;  and  his  work  had  not  perished: 
but  acclamations  of  praise  for  the  task  he  had  accomplished 
burst  out  into  a  song  of  triumph,  which  even  tears  for  his 
death  cannot  keep  down. 

The  President  stood  before  us  as  a  man  of  the  people.^  He 
was  thoroughly  American,  had  never  crossed  the  sea,  had 
never  been  spoiled  by  English  insularity  or  French  dissipa- 
1  Spoken  at  the  funeral  services  held  in  Concord,  April  19,  1865. 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  67 

tion;  a  quite  native,  aboriginal  man,  as  an  acorn  from  the 
oak;  no  aping  of  foreigners,  no  frivolous  accomplishments, 
Kentuckian  born,  working  on  a  farm,'  a  flatboatman,  a  cap 
tain  in  the  Black  Hawk  War,  a  country  lawyer,  a  represent 
ative  in  the  rural  Legislature  of  Illinois;  —  on  such  modest 
foundations  the  broad  structure  of  his  fame  was  laidf  How 
slowly,  and  yet  by  happily  prepared  steps,  he  came  to  his 
place.  All  of  us  remember  —  it  is  only  a  history  of  five  or 
six  years  —  the  surprise  and  the  disappointment  of  the  coun 
try  at  his  first  nomination  by  the  Convention  at  Chicago. 
Mr.  Seward,  then  in  the  culmination  of  his  good  fame,  was 
the  favorite  of  the  Eastern  States.  And  when  the  new  and 
comparatively  unknown  name  of  Lincoln  was  announced 
(notwithstanding  the  report  of  the  acclamations  of  that 
Convention),  we  heard  the  result  coldly  and  sadly.  It 
seemed  too  rash,  on  a  purely  local  reputation,  to  build  so 
grave  a  trust  in  such  anxious  times;  and  men  naturally 
talked  of  the  chances  in  politics  as  incalculable.  But  it 
turned  out  not  to  be  chance.  The  profound  good  opinion 
which  the  people  of  Illinois  and  of  the  West  had  conceived 
of  him,  and  which  they  had  imparted  to  their  colleagues 
that  they  also  might  justify  themselves  to  their  constituents 
at  home,  was  not  rash,  though  they  did  not  begin  to  know 
the  riches  of  his  worth. 

A  plain  man  of  the  people,  an  extraordinary  fortune  at 
tended  him.  He  offered  no  shining  qualities  at  the  first  en 
counter;  he  did  not  offend  by  superiority.  He  had  a  face  and 
manner  which  disarmed  suspicion,  which  inspired  confidence, 
which  confirmed  good-will.  He  was  a  man  without  vices. 
He  had  a  strong  sense  of  duty,  which  it  was  very  easy  for 
him  to  obey.  Then,  he  had  what  farmers  call  a  long  head; 
was  excellent  in  working  out  the  sum  for  himself;  in  arguing 
his  case  and  convincing  you  fairly  and  firmly.  Then,  it 
turned  out  that  he  was  a  great  worker;  had  prodigious  faculty 


68  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

of  performance;  worked  easily.  A  good  worker  is  so  rare; 
everybody  has  some  disabling  quality.  In  a  host  of  young 
men  that  start  together  and  promise  so  many  brilliant  lead 
ers  for  the  next  age,  each  fails  on  trial;  one  by  bad  health, 
one  by  conceit,  or  by  love  of  pleasure,  or  lethargy,  or  an  ugly 
temper,  —  each  has  some  disqualifying  fault  that  throws 
him  out  of  the  career.  But  this  man  was  sound  to  the  core, 
cheerful,  persistent,  all  right  for  labor,  and  liked  nothing 
so  w^ell. 

Then,  he  had  a  vast  good-nature,  which  made  him  toler 
ant  and  accessible  to  all;  fair-minded,  leaning  to  the  claim 
of  the  petitioner;  affable,  and  not  sensible  to  the  affliction 
which  the  innumerable  visits  paid  to  him  when  President 
would  have  brought  to  any  one  else.  And  how  this  good 
nature  became  a  noble  humanity,  in  many  a  tragic  case 
which  the  events  of  the  war  brought  to  him,  every  one  will 
remember;  and  with  what  increasing  tenderness  he  dealt 
when  a  whole  race  was  thrown  on  his  compassion.  The 
poor  negro  said  of  him,  on  an  impressive  occasion,  "Massa 
Linkum  am  eberywhere." 

Then  his  broad  good-humor,  running  easily  into  jocular 
talk,  in  which  he  delighted  and  in  which  he  excelled,  was  a 
rich  gift  to  this  wise  man.  It  enabled  him  to  keep  his  secret; 
to  meet  every  kind  of  man  and  every  rank  in  society;  to  take 
off  the  edge  of  the  severest  decisions;  to  mask  his  own  pur 
pose  and  sound  his  companion;  and  to  catch  with  true  in 
stinct  the  temper  of  every  company  he  addressed.  And, 
more  than  all,  it  is  to  a  man  of  severe  labor,  in  anxious  and 
exhausting  crises,  the  natural  restorative,  good  as  sleep,  and 
is  the  protection  of  the  overdriven  brain  against  rancor  and 
insanity. 

He  is  the  author  of  a  multitude  of  good  sayings,  so  dis 
guised  as  pleasantries  that  it  is  certain  they  had  no  reputa 
tion  at  first  but  as  jests;  and  only  later,  by  the  very  accept- 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  69 

ance  and  adoption  they  find  in  the  mouths  of  millions,  turn 
out  to  be  the  wisdom  of  the  hour.  I  am  sure  if  this  man  had 
ruled  in  a  period  of  less  facility  of  printing,  he  would  have 
become  mythological  in  a  very  few  years,  like  ^Esop  or 
Pilpay,  or  one  of  the  Seven  Wise  Masters,  by  his  fables  and 
proverbs.  But  the  weight  and  penetration  of  many  passages 
in  his  letters,  messages  and  speeches,  hidden  now  by  the 
very  closeness  of  their  application  to  the  moment,  are  des 
tined  hereafter  to  wide  fame.  What  pregnant  definitions; 
what  unerring  common  sense;  what  foresight;  and,  on  great 
occasion,  what  lofty,  and  more  than  national,  what  humane 
tone !  His  brief  speech  at  Gettysburg  will  not  easily  be  sur 
passed  by  words  on  any  recorded  occasion.  This,  and  one 
other  American  speech,  that  of  John  Brown  to  the  court  that 
tried  him,  and  a  part  of  Kossuth's  speech  at  Birmingham, 
can  only  be  compared  with  each  other,  and  with  no  fourth. 
His  occupying  the  chair  of  State  was  a  triumph  of  the 
good  sense  of  mankind,  and  of  the  public  conscience.  This 
middle-class  country  had  got  a  middle-class  President,  at 
last.  Yes,  in  manners  and  sympathies,  but  not  in  powers,  for 
his  powers  were  superior.  This  man  grew  according  to  the 
need.  His  mind  mastered  the  problem  of  the  day;  and,  as 
the  problem  grew,  so  did  his  comprehension  of  it.  Rarely 
was  man  so  fitted  to  the  event.  In  the  midst  of  fears  and 
jealousies,  in  the  Babel  of  counsels  and  parties,  this  man 
wrought  incessantly  with  all  his  might  and  all  his  honesty, 
laboring  to  find  what  the  people  wanted,  and  how  to  obtain 
that.  It  cannot  be  said  there  is  any  exaggeration  of  his 
worth.  If  ever  a  man  was  fairly  tested,  he  was.  There  was 
no  lack  of  resistance,  nor  of  slander,  nor  of  ridicule.  The 
times  have  allowed  no  state  secrets;  the  nation  has  been  in 
such  ferment,  such  multitudes  had  to  be  trusted,  that  no 
secret  could  be  kept.  Every  door  was  ajar,  and  we  know  all 
that  befell. 


70  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

Then,  what  an  occasion  was  the  whirlwind  of  the  war. 
Here  was  place  for  no  holiday  magistrate,  no  fair-weather 
sailor;  the  new  pilot  was  hurried  to  the  helm  in  a  tornado. 
In  four  years,  —  four  years  of  battle-days,  —  his  endurance, 
his  fertility  of  resources,  his  magnanimity,  were  sorely  tried 
and  never  found  wanting.  There,  by  his  courage,  his  justice, 
his  even  temper,  his  fertile  counsel,  his  humanity,  he  stood  a 
heroic  figure  in  the  centre  of  a  heroic  epoch.  He  is  the  true 
history  of  the  American  people  in  his  time.  Step  by  step  he 
walked  before  them;  slow  with  their  slowness,  quickening 
his  march  by  theirs,  the  true  representative  of  this  continent; 
an  entirely  public  man;  father  of  his  country,  the  pulse  of 
twenty  millions  throbbing  in  his  heart,  the  thought  of  their 
minds  articulated  by  his  tongue. 

Adam  Smith  remarks  that  the  axe,  which  in  Houbraken's 
portraits  of  British  kings  and  worthies  is  engraved  under 
those  who  have  suffered  at  the  block,  adds  a  certain  lofty 
charm  to  the  picture.  And  who  does  not  see,  even  in  this 
tragedy  so  recent,  how  fast  the  terror  and  ruin  of  the  mas 
sacre  are  already  burning  into  glory  around  the  victim?  Far 
happier  this  fate  than  to  have  lived  to  be  wished  away;  to 
have  watched  the  decay  of  his  own  faculties;  to  have  seen, 
—  perhaps  even  he,  —  the  proverbial  ingratitude  of  states 
men;  to  have  seen  mean  men  preferred.  Had  he  not  lived 
long  enough  to  keep  the  greatest  promise  that  ever  man 
made  to  his  fellow-men,  —  the  practical  abolition  of  slavery? 
He  had  seen  Tennessee,  Missouri  and  Maryland  emancipate 
their  slaves.  He  had  seen  Savannah,  Charleston  and  Rich 
mond  surrendered;  had  seen  the  main  army  of  the  rebellion 
lay  down  its  arms.  He  had  conquered  the  public  opinion  of 
Canada,  England  and  France.  Only  Washington  can  com 
pare  with  him  in  fortune. 

s    And  what  if  it  should  turn  out,  in  the  unfolding  of  the 
web,  that  he  had  reached  the  term;  that  this  heroic  deliverer 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  71 

could  no  longer  serve  us;  that  the  rebellion  had  touched  its 
natural  conclusion,  and  what  remained  to  be  done  required 
new  and  uncommitted  hands,  —  a  new  spirit  born  out  of  the 
ashes  of  the  war;  and  that  Heaven,  wishing  to  show  the 
world  a  completed  benefactor,  shall  make  him  serve  his 
country  even  more  by  his  death  than  by  his  life?  Nations, 
like  kings,  are  not  good  by  facility  and  complaisance.  "The 
kindness  of  kings  consists  in  justice  and  strength."  Easy 
good-nature  has  been  the  dangerous  foible  of  the  Republic, 
and  it  was  necessary  that  its  enemies  should  outrage  it,  and 
drive  us  to  unwonted  firmness,  to  secure  the  salvation  of  this 
country  in  the  next  ages. 

:  The  ancients  believed  in  a  serene  and  beautiful  Genius 
which  ruled  in  the  affairs  of  nations;  which,  with  a  slow  but 
stern  justice,  carried  forward  the  fortunes  of  certain  chosen 
houses,  weeding  out  single  offenders  or  offending  families, 
and  securing  at  last  the  firm  prosperity  of  the  favorites  of 
Heaven,  j  It  was  too  narrow  a  view  of  the  Eternal  Nemesis. 
There  is  a  serene  Providence  which  rules  the  fate  of  nations, 
which  makes  little  account  of  time,  little  of  one  generation 
or  race,  makes  no  account  of  disasters,  corumers  alike  by 
what  is  called  defeat  or  by  what  is  called  victory,  thrusts 
aside  enemy  and  obstruction,  crushes  every  tiring  immoral  as 
inhuman,  and  obtains  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  best  race 
by  the  sacrifice  of  everything  which  resists  the  moral  laws  of 
the  world.  It  makes  its  own  instruments,  creates  the  man 
for  the  time,  trains  him  in  poverty,  inspires  his  genius,  and 
arms  him  for  his  task.  It  has  given  every  race  its  own  talent, 
and  ordains  that  only  that  race  which  combines  perfectly 
with  the  virtues  of  all  shall  endure.  s 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  THE  WEST  TO 
AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY  i 

FREDERICK  J.  TURNER 

POLITICAL  thought  in  the  period  of  the  French  Revolution 
tended  to  treat  democracy  as  an  absolute  system  applicable 
to  all  times  and  to  all  peoples,  a  system  that  was  to  be  cre 
ated  by  the  act  of  the  people  themselves  on  philosophical 
principles.  Ever  since  that  era  there  has  been  an  inclination 
on  the  part  of  writers  on  democracy  to  emphasize  the  ana 
lytical  and  theoretical  treatment  to  the  neglect  of  the  un 
derlying  factors  of  historical  development. 

If,  however,  we  consider  the  underlying  conditions  and 
forces  that  create  the  democratic  type  of  government,  and 
at  times  contradict  the  external  forms  to  which  the  name 
democracy  is  applied,  we  shall  find  that  under  this  name 
there  have  appeared  a  multitude  of  political  types  radically 
unlike  in  fact.  The  careful  student  of  history  must,  there 
fore,  seek  the  explanation  of  the  forms  and  changes  of  polit 
ical  institutions  in  the  social  and  economic  forces  that  de 
termine  them.  To  know  that  at  any  one  time  a  Nation  may 
be  called  a  democracy,  an  aristocracy,  or  a  monarchy,  is  not 
so  important  as  to  know  what  are  the  social  and  economic 
tendencies  of  the  State.  These  are  the  vital  forces  that 
work  beneath  the  surface  and  dominate  the  external  form. 
It  is  to  changes  in  the  economic  and  social  life  of  a  people 
that  we  must  look  for  the  forces  that  ultimately  create  and 
modify  organs  of  political  action.  For  the  time,  adaptation 

1  Atlantic  Monthly,  January,  1903.    Reprinted  through  the  generous 
permission  of  the  author  and  of  the  Atlantic  Monthly  Company. 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY     73 

of  political  structure  may  be  incomplete  or  concealed.  Old 
organs  will  be  utilized  to  express  new  forces,  and  so  gradual 
and  subtle  will  be  the  change  that  it  may  hardly  be  recog 
nized.  The  pseudo-democracies  under  the  Medici  at  Flor 
ence  and  under  Augustus  at  Rome  are  familiar  examples  of 
this  type.  Or  again,  if  the  political  structure  be  rigid,  in 
capable  of  responding  to  the  changes  demanded  by  growth, 
the  expansive  forces  of  social  and  economic  transformation 
may  rend  it  in  some  catastrophe  like  that  of  the  French 
Revolution.  In  all  these  changes  both  conscious  ideals  and 
unconscious  social  reorganization  are  at  work. 

These  facts  are  familiar  to  the  student,  and  yet  it  is  doubt 
ful  if  they  have  been  fully  considered  in  connection  with 
American  democracy.  For  a  century  at  least,  in  conven 
tional  expression,  Americans  have  referred  to  a  "glorious 
Constitution"  in  explaining  the  stability  and  prosperity  of 
their  democracy.  We  have  believed  as  a  Nation  that  other 
peoples  had  only  to  will  our  democratic  institutions  in  order 
to  repeat  our  own  career. 

In  dealing  with  Western  contributions  to  democracy,  it  is 
essential  that  the  considerations  which  have  just  been  men 
tioned  shall  be  kept  in  mind.  Whatever  these  contributions 
may  have  been,  we  find  ourselves  at  the  present  time  in  an 
era  of  such  profound  economic  and  social  transformation  as 
to  raise  the  question  of  the  effect  of  these  changes  upon  the 
democratic  institutions  of  the  United  States.  Within  a 
decade  four  marked  changes  have  occurred  in  our  National 
development:  taken  together  they  constitute  a  revolution. 

First,  there  is  the  exhaustion  of  the  supply  of  free  land  and 
the  closing  of  the  movement  of  Western  advance  as  an  ef 
fective  factor  in  American  development.  The  Superintend 
ent  of  the  Census  in  1890  announced  the  fact  that  a  fron 
tier  line  could  no  longer  be  traced  in  the  population  map  of 
the  United  States,  which  decade  after  decade  had  repre- 


74  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

sented  the  advance  of  settlement.  The  continent  has  been 
crossed.  The  first  rough  conquest  of  the  wilderness  is  ac 
complished,  and  that  great  supply  of  free  lands  which  year 
after  year  has  served  to  reinforce  the  democratic  influences 
in  the  United  States  is  exhausted.  It  is  true  that  vast  tracts 
of  Government  land  are  still  untaken,  but  they  constitute 
the  arid  region,  only  a  small  fraction  of  them  capable  of  con 
quest,  and  then  only  by  the  application  of  capital  and  com 
bined  effort.  The  free  lands  that  made  the  American  pioneer 
have  gone. 

In  the  second  place,  contemporaneously  with  this  there 
has  been  such  a  concentration  of  capital  in  the  control  of 
fundamental  industries  as  to  make  a  new  epoch  in  the  eco 
nomic  development  of  the  United  States.  The  iron,  the  coal, 
and  the  cattle  of  the  country  have  all  fallen  under  the  domina 
tion  of  a  few  great  corporations  with  allied  interests,  and 
by  the  rapid  combination  of  the  important  railroad  systems 
and  steamship  lines,  in  concert  with  these  same  forces,  even 
the  breadstuffs  and  the  manufactures  of  the  Nation  are  to 
some  degree  controlled  in  a  similar  way.  This  is  largely  the 
work  of  the  last  decade.  The  development  of  the  greatest 
iron  mines  of  Lake  Superior  occurred  in  the  early  nineties, 
and  in  the  same  decade  came  the  combination  by  wyhich  the 
coal  and  the  coke  of  the  country,  and  the  transportation 
systems  that  connect  them  with  the  iron  mines,  have  been 
brought  under  a  few  concentrated  managements.  Side  by 
side  with  this  concentration  of  capital  has  gone  the  combina 
tion  of  labor  in  the  same  vast  industries.  The  one  is  in  a 
certain  sense  the  concomitant  of  the  other,  but  the  move 
ment  acquires  an  additional  significance  because  of  the  fact 
that  during  the  past  fifteen  years  the  labor  class  has  been  so 
recruited  by  a  tide  of  foreign  immigration  that  this  class  is 
now  largely  made  up  of  persons  of  foreign  parentage,  and 
the  lines  of  cleavage  which  begin  to  appear  in  this  country 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY     75 

between  capital  and  labor  have  been  accentuated  by  dis 
tinctions  of  nationality. 

A  third  phenomenon  connected  with  the  two  just  men 
tioned  is  the  expansion  of  the  United  States  politically  and 
commercially  into  lands  beyond  the  seas.  A  cycle  of  Ameri 
can  development  has  been  completed.  Up  to  the  close  of  the 
War  of  1812,  this  country  was  involved  in  the  fortunes  of  the 
European  state  system.  The  first  quarter  of  a  century  of  OUT 
National  existence  was  almost  a  continual  struggle  to  pre 
vent  ourselves  being  drawn  into  the  European  wars.  At  the 
close  of  that  era  of  conflict,  the  United  States  set  its  face 
toward  the  West.  It  began  the  settlement  and  improve 
ment  of  the  vast  interior  of  the  country.  Here  was  the  field 
of  our  colonization,  here  the  field  of  our  political  activity. 
This  process  being  completed,  it  is  not  strange  that  we  find 
the  United  States  again  involved  in  world-politics.  The 
revolution  that  occurred  four  years  ago,  when  the  United 
States  struck  down  that  ancient  nation  under  whose  aus 
pices  the  New  World  was  discovered,  is  hardly  yet  more  than 
dimly  understood.  The  insular  wreckage  of  the  Spanish 
War,  Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippines,  with  the  problems 
presented  by  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  Cuba,  the  Isthmian 
Canal,  and  China,  all  are  indications  of  the  new  direction  of 
the  ship  of  State,  and  while  wre  thus  turn  our  attention  over 
seas,  our  concentrated  industrial  strength  has  given  us  a 
striking  power  against  the  commerce  of  Europe  that  is  al 
ready  producing  consternation  in  the  Old  World.  Having 
completed  the  conquest  of  the  wilderness,  and  having  con 
solidated  our  interests,  we  are  beginning  to  consider  the  re 
lations  of  democracy  and  empire. 

And  fourth,  the  political  parties  of  the  United  States  now 
tend  to  divide  on  issues  that  involve  the  question  of  Social 
ism.  The  rise  of  the  Populist  Party  in  the  last  decade,  and 
the  acceptance  of  so  many  of  its  principles  by  the  Demo- 


76  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

cratic  Party  under  the  leadership  of  Mr.  Bryan,  show  in 
striking  manner  the  birth  of  new  political  ideas,  the  reforma 
tion  of  the  lines  of  political  conflict. 

It  is  doubtful  if  in  any  ten  years  of  American  history  more 
significant  factors  in  our  growth  have  revealed  themselves. 
The  struggle  of  the  pioneer  farmers  to  subdue  the  arid  lands 
of  the  Great  Plains  in  the  eighties  was  followed  by  the  offi 
cial  announcement  of  the  extinction  of  the  frontier  line  in 
1890.  The  dramatic  outcome  of  the  Chicago  Convention 
of  1896  marked  the  rise  into  power  of  the  representatives 
of  Populistic  change.  Two  years  later  came  the  battle  of 
Manila,  which  broke  down  the  old  isolation  of  the  Nation, 
and  started  it  on  a  path  the  goal  of  which  no  man  can  fore 
tell  ;  and  finally,  but  two  years  ago  came  that  concentration 
of  which  the  billion  and  a  half  dollar  steel  trust  and  the 
union  of  the  Northern  continental  railways  are  stupendous 
examples.  Is  it  not  obvious,  then,  that  the  student  who 
seeks  for  the  explanation  of  democracy  in  the  social  and 
economic  forces  that  underlie  political  forms  must  make 
inquiry  into  the  conditions  that  have  produced  our  demo 
cratic  institutions,  if  he  would  estimate  the  effects  of  these 
vast  changes?  As  a  contribution  to  this  inquiry,  let  us  now 
turn  to  an  examination  of  the  part  that  the  West  has  played 
in  shaping  our  democracy. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  settlement  of  America,  the 
frontier  regions  have  exercised  a  steady  influence  toward 
democracy.  In  Virginia,  to  take  an  example,  it  can  be  traced 
as  early  as  the  period  of  Bacon's  Rebellion,  a  hundred  years 
before  our  Declaration  of  Independence.  The  small  land 
holders,  seeing  that  their  powers  were  steadily  passing  into 
the  hands  of  the  wealthy  planters  who  controlled  Church 
and  State  and  lands,  rose  in  revolt.  A  generation  later,  in 
the  governorship  of  Alexander  Spotswood,  we  find  a  con 
test  between  the  frontier  settlers  and  the  property-holding 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY    77 

classes  of  the  coast.  The  democracy  with  which  Spotswood 
had  to  struggle,  and  of  which  he  so  bitterly  complained,  was 
a  democracy  made  up  of  small  landholders,  of  the  newer  im 
migrants,  and  of  indented  servants,  who  at  the  expiration 
of  their  time  of  servitude  passed  into  the  interior  to  take  up 
lands  and  engage  in  pioneer  farming.  The  "  War  of  the  Regu 
lation  "  just  on  the  eve  of  the  American  Revolution  shows 
the  steady  persistence  of  this  struggle  between  the  classes 
of  the  interior  and  those  of  the  coast.  The  Declaration  of 
Grievances  which  the  back  counties  of  the  Carolinas  then 
drew  up  against  the  aristocracy  that  dominated  the  politics 
of  those  colonies  exhibits  the  contest  between  the  democracy 
of  the  frontier  and  the  established  classes  who  apportioned 
the  Legislature  in  such  fashion  as  to  secure  effective  control 
of  government.  Indeed,  in  a  period  before  the  outbreak  of 
the  American  Revolution,  one  can  trace  a  distinct  belt 
of  democratic  territory  extending  from  the  back  country  of 
New  England  down  through  western  New  York,  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  the  South.  In  each  colony  this  region  was  in 
conflict  with  the  dominant  classes  of  the  coast.  It  consti 
tuted  a  quasi-revolutionary  area  before  the  days  of  the  Rev 
olution,  and  it  formed  the  basis  on  which  the  Democratic 
Party  was  afterwards  established.  It  was,  therefore,  in  the 
West,  as  it  was  in  the  period  before  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  that  the  struggle  for  democratic  development  first 
revealed  itself,  and  in  that  area  the  essential  ideas  of  Ameri 
can  democracy  had  already  appeared.  Through  the  period 
of  the  Revolution  and  of  the  Confederation  a  similar  con 
test  can  be  noted.  On  the  frontier  of  New  England,  along 
the  western  border  of  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  and  the  Caro 
linas,  and  in  the  communities  beyond  the  Alleghany  Moun 
tains,  there  arose  a  demand  of  the  frontier  settlers  for  inde 
pendent  statehood  based  on  democratic  provisions.  There  is 
a  strain  of  fierceness  in  their  energetic  petitions  demanding 


78  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

self-government  under  the  theory  that  every  people  have  the 
right  to  establish  their  own  political  institutions  in  an  area 
which  they  have  won  from  the  wilderness.  Those  revolu 
tionary  principles  based  on  natural  rights,  for  which  the  sea 
board  colonies  were  contending,  were  taken  up  with  frontier 
energy  in  an  attempt  to  apply  them  to  the  lands  of  the  West. 
No  one  can  read  their  petitions  denouncing  the  control  ex 
ercised  by  the  wealthy  landholders  of  the  coast,  appealing 
to  the  record  of  their  conquest  of  the  wilderness,  and  de 
manding  the  possession  of  the  lands  for  which  they  have 
fought  the  Indians,  and  which  they  had  reduced  by  their 
axe  to  civilisation,  without  recognizing  in  these  frontier 
communities  the  cradle  of  a  belligerent  Western  democracy. 
"A  fool  can  sometimes  put  on  his  coat  better  than  a  wise 
man  can  do  it  for  him,"  —  such  is  the  philosophy  of  its 
petitions.  In  this  period  also  came  the  contests  of  the  in 
terior  agricultural  portion  of  New  England  against  the  coast 
wise  merchants  and  property-holders,  of  which  Shays' 
Rebellion  is  the  best  known,  although  by  no  means  an  iso 
lated  instance.  By  the  time  of  the  constitutional  convention, 
this  struggle  for  democracy  had  effected  a  fairly  well-de 
fined  division  into  parties.  Although  these  parties  did  not 
at  first  recognize  their  interstate  connections,  there  were 
similar  issues  on  which  they  split  in  almost  all  the  States. 
The  demands  for  an  issue  of  paper  money,  the  stay  of  execu 
tion  against  debtors,  and  the  relief  against  excessive  taxa 
tion  were  found  in  every  colony  in  the  interior  agricultural 
regions.  The  rise  of  this  significant  movement  awakened  the 
apprehensions  of  the  men  of  means,  and  in  the  debates  over 
the  basis  of  suffrage  for  the  House  of  Representatives  in  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1787  leaders  of  the  conserva 
tive  party  did  not  hesitate  to  demand  that  safeguards  to 
property  should  be  furnished  the  coast  against  the  interior. 
The  outcome  of  the  debate  left  the  question  of  suffrage 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY     79 

for  the  House  of  Representatives  dependent  upon  the  policy 
of  the  separate  States.  This  was  in  effect  imposing  a  prop 
erty  qualification  throughout  the  Nation  as  a  whole,  and  it 
was  only  as  the  interior  of  the  country  developed  that  these 
restrictions  gradually  gave  way  in  the  direction  of  manhood 
suffrage. 

All  of  these  scattered  democratic  tendencies  Jefferson 
combined,  in  the  period  of  Washington's  Presidency,  into 
the  Democratic-Republican  Party.  Jefferson  was  the  first 
prophet  of  American  democracy,  and  when  we  analyze  the 
essential  features  of  his  gospel,  it  is  clear  that  the  Western 
influence  was  the  dominant  element.  Jefferson  himself  was 
born  in  the  frontier  region  of  Virginia,  on  the  edge  of  the 
Blue  Ridge,  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  His 
father  was  a  pioneer.  Jefferson's  Notes  on  Virginia  reveal 
clearly  his  conception  that  democracy  should  have  an  agri 
cultural  basis,  and  that  manufacturing  development  and 
city  life  were  dangerous  to  the  purity  of  the  body  politic. 
Simplicity  and  economy  in  government,  the  right  of  revolu 
tion,  the  freedom  of  the  individual,  the  belief  that  those 
who  win  the  vacant  lands  are  entitled  to  shape  their  own 
government  in  then*  own  way,  these  are  all  parts  of  the  plat 
form  of  political  principles  to  which  he  gave  his  adhesion, 
and  they  are  all  elements  eminently  characteristic  of  the 
Western  democracy  into  which  he  was  born.  In  the  period 
of  the  Revolution  he  had  brought  in  a  series  of  measures 
which  tended  to  throw  the  power  of  Virginia  into  the  hands 
of  the  settlers  in  the  interior  rather  than  of  the  coastwise 
aristocracy.  The  repeal  of  the  laws  of  entail  and  primo 
geniture  would  have  destroyed  the  great  estates  on  which 
the  planting  aristocracy  based  its  power.  The  abolition  of  the 
Established  Church  would  still  further  have  diminished  the 
influence  of  the  coastwise  party  in  favor  of  the  dissenting 
sects  of  the  interior.  His  scheme  of  general  public  education 


80  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

reflected  the  same  tendency,  and  his  demand  for  the  aboli 
tion  of  slavery  was  characteristic  of  a  representative  of  the 
West  rather  than  of  the  old-time  aristocracy  of  the  coast. 
His  sympathy  with  the  Western  expansion  culminated  in 
the  Louisiana  Purchase.  In  a  word,  the  tendencies  of  Jeffer 
son's  legislation  were  to  replace  the  dominance  of  the  plant 
ing  aristocracy  by  the  dominance  of  the  interior  class,  which 
had  sought  in  vain  to  achieve  its  liberties  in  the  period  of 
Bacon's  Rebellion. 

Nevertheless,  Thomas  Jefferson  was  the  John  the  Baptist 
of  democracy,  not  its  Moses.  Only  writh  the  slow  setting  of 
the  tide  of  settlement  farther  and  farther  toward  the  in 
terior  did  the  democratic  influence  grow  strong  enough  to 
take  actual  possession  of  the  Government.  The  period  from 
1800  to  1820  saw  a  steady  increase  in  these  tendencies.  The 
established  classes  in  New  England  and  the  South  began  to 
take  alarm.  Perhaps  no  better  illustration  of  the  apprehen 
sions  of  the  old-time  Federal  conservative  can  be  given  than 
these  utterances  of  President  Dwight,  of  Yale  College,  in  the 
book  of  travels  which  he  published  in  that  period :  — 

The  class  of  pioneers  cannot  live  in  regular  society.  They  are 
too  idle,  too  talkative,  too  passionate,  too  prodigal,  and  too  shift 
less  to  acquire  either  property  or  character.  They  are  impatient 
of  the  restraints  of  law,  religion,  and  morality,  and  grumble  about 
the  taxes  by  which  the  Rulers,  Ministers,  and  Schoolmasters  are 
supported.  .  .  .  After  exposing  the  injustice  of  the  community  in 
neglecting  to  invest  persons  of  such  superior  merit  in  public  offices, 
in  many  an  eloquent  harangue  uttered  by  many  a  kitchen  fire,  in 
every  blacksmith  shop,  in  every  corner  of  the  streets,  and  finding 
all  their  efforts  vain,  they  become  at  length  discouraged,  and  under 
the  pressure  of  poverty,  the  fear  of  the  gaol,  and  consciousness  of 
public  contempt,  leave  their  native  places  and  betake  themselves 
to  the  wilderness. 

Such  was  a  conservative's  impression  of  that  pioneer 
movement  of  New  England  colonists  who  had  spread  up  the 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY     81 

valley  of  the  Connecticut  into  New  Hampshire,  Vermont, 
and  western  New  York  in  the  period  of  which  he  wrote,  and 
who  afterwards  went  on  to  possess  the  Northwest.  New 
England  Federalism  looked  with  a  shudder  at  the  democratic 
ideas  of  those  who  refused  to  recognize  the  established  order. 
But  in  that  period  there  came  into  the  Union  a  sisterhood  of 
frontier  States  —  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri  —  with 
provisions  for  the  franchise  that  brought  in  complete  de 
mocracy.  Even  the  newly  created  States  of  the  Southwest 
showed  the  same  tendency.  The  wind  of  democracy  blew  so 
strongly  from  the  West,  that  even  in  the  older  States  of 
New  York,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Virginia,  con 
ventions  were  called,  which  liberalized  their  constitutions  by 
strengthening  the  democratic  basis  of  the  State.  In  the  same 
time  the  labor  population  of  the  cities  began  to  assert  its 
power  and  its  determination  to  share  in  government.  Of 
this  frontier  democracy  which  now  took  possession  of  the 
Nation,  Andrew  Jackson  was  the  very  personification.  He 
was  born  in  the  backwoods  of  the  Carolinas  in  the  midst  of 
the  turbulent  democracy  that  preceded  the  Revolution,  and 
he  grew  up  in  the  frontier  State  of  Tennessee.  In  the  midst 
of  this  region  of  personal  feuds  and  frontier  ideals  of  law,  he 
quickly  rose  to  leadership.  The  appearance  of  this  frontiers 
man  on  the  floor  of  Congress  was  an  omen  full  of  significance. 
He  reached  Philadelphia  at  the  close  of  Washington's  Ad 
ministration,  having  ridden  on  horseback  nearly  eight  hun 
dred  miles  to  his  destination.  Gallatin,  himself  a  Western 
man,  describes  Jackson  as  he  entered  the  halls  of  Congress : 
"A  tall,  lank,  uncouth-looking  personage,  with  long  locks  of 
hair  hanging  over  his  face  and  a  cue  down  his  back  tied  in 
an  eel-skin;  his  dress  singular;  his  manners  those  of  a  rough 
backwoodsman."  And  Jefferson  testified:  "When  I  was 
President  of  the  Senate  he  was  a  Senator,  and  he  could  never 
speak  on  account  of  the  rashness  of  his  feelings.  I  have  seen 


82  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

him  attempt  it  repeatedly  and  as  often  choke  with  rage." 
At  last  the  frontier  in  the  person  of  its  typical  man  had  found 
a  place  in  the  Government.  This  six-foot  backwoodsman, 
with  blue  eyes  that  could  blaze  on  occasion,  this  choleric, 
impetuous,  self-willed  Scotch-Irish  leader  of  men,  this  ex 
pert  duelist,  and  ready  fighter,  this  embodiment  of  the  tena 
cious,  vehement,  personal  West,  was  in  politics  to  stay.  The 
frontier  democracy  of  that  time  had  the  instincts  of  the 
clansman  in  the  days  of  Scotch  border  warfare.  Vehement 
and  tenacious  as  the  democracy  was,  strenuously  as  each 
man  contended  with  his  neighbor  for  the  spoils  of  the  new 
country  that  opened  before  them,  they  all  had  respect  for 
the  man  who  best  expressed  their  aspirations  and  their  ideas. 
Every  community  had  its  hero.  In  the  War  of  1812  and  the 
subsequent  Indian  fighting  Jackson  made  good  his  claim,  not 
only  to  the  loyalty  of  the  people  of  Tennessee,  but  of  the 
whole  West,  and  even  of  the  Nation.  He  had  the  essential 
traits  of  the  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  frontier.  It  was  a 
frontier  free  from  the  influence  of  European  ideas  and  in 
stitutions.  The  men  of  the  "Western  World"  turned  their 
backs  upon  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and  with  a  grim  energy 
and  self-reliance  began  to  build  up  a  society  free  from  the 
dominance  of  ancient  forms. 

The  Westerner  defended  himself  and  resented  govern 
mental  restrictions.  The  duel  and  the  blood-feud  found  con 
genial  soil  in  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  The  idea  of  the 
personality  of  law  w^as  often  dominant  over  the  organized 
machinery  of  justice.  That  method  was  best  which  was 
most  direct  and  effective.  The  backwoodsman  was  intoler 
ant  of  men  who  split  hairs,  or  scrupled  over  the  method  of 
reaching  the  right.  In  a  word,  the  unchecked  development 
of  the  individual  was  the  significant  product  of  this  frontier 
democracy.  It  sought  rather  to  express  itself  by  choosing 
a  man  of  the  people,  than  by  the  formation  of  elaborate 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY    83 

governmental  institutions.  It  was  because  Andrew  Jackson 
personified  these  essential  Western  traits  that  in  his  Presi 
dency  he  became  the  idol  and  the  mouthpiece  of  the  popular 
will.  In  his  assaults  upon  the  Bank  as  an  engine  of  aris 
tocracy,  and  in  his  denunciation  of  Nullification,  he  went 
directly  to  his  object  with  the  ruthless  energy  of  a  frontiers 
man.  For  formal  law  and  the  subleties  of  State  sovereignty 
he  had  the  contempt  of  a  backwoodsman.  Nor  is  it  without 
significance  that  this  typical  man  of  the  new  democracy 
will  always  be  associated  with  the  triumph  of  the  spoils 
system  in  National  politics.  To  the  new  democracy  of  the 
West,  office  was  an  opportunity  to  exercise  natural  rights  as 
an  equal  citizen  of  the  community.  Rotation  in  office  served 
not  simply  to  allow  the  successful  man  to  punish  his  enemies 
and  reward  his  friends,  but  it  also  furnished  the  training  in 
the  actual  conduct  of  political  affairs  which  every  American 
claimed  as  his  birthright.  Only  in  a  primitive  democracy  of 
the  type  of  the  United  States  in  1830  could  such  a  system 
have  existed  without  the  ruin  of  the  State.  National  gov 
ernment  in  that  period  was  no  complex  and  nicely  adjusted 
machine,  and  the  evils  of  the  system  were  long  in  making 
themselves  fully  apparent. 

The  triumph  of  Andrew  Jackson  marked  the  end  of  an  old 
era  of  trained  statesmen  for  the  Presidency.  With  him  began 
the  era  of  the  popular  hero.  Even  Martin  Van  Buren,  whom 
we  think  of  in  connection  with  the  East,  was  born  in  a  log 
house  under  conditions  that  were  not  unlike  parts  of  the 
older  West.  Harrison  was  the  hero  of  the  Northwest,  as 
Jackson  had  been  of  the  Southwest.  Polk  was  a  typical 
Tennesseean,  eager  to  expand  the  Nation,  and  Zachary 
Taylor  was  what  Webster  called  a  "frontier  colonel."  Dur 
ing  the  period  that  followed  Jackson,  power  passed  from  the 
region  of  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  to  the  border  of  the  Mis 
sissippi.  The  natural  democratic  tendencies  that  had  earlier 


84  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

shown  themselves  in  the  Gulf  States  were  destroyed,  how 
ever,  by  the  spread  of  cotton  culture,  and  the  development 
of  great  plantations  in  that  region.  What  had  been  typical 
of  the  democracy  of  the  Revolutionary  frontier  and  of  the 
frontier  of  Andrew  Jackson  was  now  to  be  seen  in  the  States 
between  the  Ohio  and  the  Mississippi.  As  Andrew  Jackson  is 
the  typical  democrat  of  the  former  region,  so  Abraham  Lin 
coln  is  the  very  embodiment  of  the  pioneer  period  of  the  old 
Northwest.  Indeed,  he  is  the  embodiment  of  the  democracy 
of  the  West.  How  can  one  speak  of  him  except  in  the  words 
of  Lowell's  great  "Commemoration  Ode":  — 

"  For  him  her  Old-World  moulds  aside  she  threw, 
And,  choosing  sweet  clay  from  the  breast 

Of  the  unexhausted  West, 
With  stuff  untainted  shaped  a  hero  new, 
Wise,  steadfast  in  the  strength  of  God,  and  true. 

His  was  no  lonely  mountain-peak  of  mind, 
Thrusting  to  thin  air  o'er  our  cloudy  bars, 
A  sea-mark  now,  now  lost  in  vapors  blind; 
Broad  prairie  rather,  genial,  level-lined, 
Fruitful  and  friendly  for  all  human  kind, 
Yet  also  nigh  to  heaven  and  loved  of  loftiest  stars. 
Nothing  of  Europe  here, 

New  birth  of  our  new  soil,  the  first  American." 

The  pioneer  life  from  which  Lincoln  came  differed  in  im 
portant  respects  from  the  frontier  democracy  typified  by 
Andrew  Jackson.  Jackson's  democracy  was  contentious, 
individualistic,  and  it  sought  the  ideal  of  local  self-govern 
ment  and  expansion.  Lincoln  represents  rather  the  pioneer 
folk  who  entered  the  forest  of  the  great  Northwest  to  chop 
out  a  home,  to  build  up  their  fortunes  in  the  midst  of  a  con 
tinually  ascending  industrial  movement.  In  the  democracy 
of  the  Southwest,  industrial  development  and  city  life  were 
only  minor  factors,  but  to  the  democracy  of  the  Northwest 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY    85 

they  were  its  very  life.  To  widen  the  area  of  this  clearing, 
to  contend  with  one  another  for  the  mastery  of  the  industrial 
resources  of  the  rich  provinces,  to  struggle  for  a  place  in  the 
ascending  movement  of  society,  to  transmit  to  one's  offspring 
the  chance  for  education,  for  industrial  betterment,  for  the  rise 
in  life  which  the  hardships  of  the  pioneer  existence  denied  to 
the  pioneer  himself,  these  were  some  of  the  ideals  of  the  re 
gion  to  which  Lincoln  came.  The  men  were  commonwealth 
builders,  industry  builders.  Whereas  the  type  of  hero  in  the 
Southwest  was  militant,  in  the  Northwest  he  was  industrial. 
It  was  in  the  midst  of  these  "plain  people,"  as  he  loved  to 
call  them,  that  Lincoln  grew  to  manhood.  As  Emerson  says : 
"He  is  the  true  history  of  the  American  people  in  his  time." 
The  years  of  his  early  life  were  the  years  when  the  democracy 
of  the  Northwest  came  into  struggle  with  the  institution  of 
slavery  that  threatened  to  forbid  the  expansion  of  the  dem 
ocratic  pioneer  life  in  the  West.  In  President  Eliot's  essay 
on  Five  American  Contributions  to  Civilization,  he  instances 
as  one  of  the  supreme  tests  of  American  democracy  its  at 
titude  upon  the  question  of  slavery.  But  if  democracy  chose 
wisely  and  worked  effectively  toward  the  solution  of  this 
problem,  it  must  be  remembered  that  Western  democracy 
took  the  lead.  The  rail-splitter  himself  became  the  Nation's 
President  in  that  fierce  time  of  struggle,  and  the  armies  of 
the  woodsmen  and  pioneer  farmers  recruited  in  the  old 
Northwest,  under  the  leadership  of  Sherman  and  Grant, 
made  free  the  Father  of  the  Waters,  marched  through  Geor 
gia,  and  helped  to  force  the  struggle  to  a  conclusion  at  Ap- 
pomattox.  The  free  pioneer  democracy  struck  down  slave- 
holding  aristocracy  on  its  march  to  the  West. 

The  last  chapter  in  the  development  of  Western  democ 
racy  is  the  one  that  deals  with  its  conquest  over  the  vast 
spaces  of  the  new  West.  At  each  new  stage  of  Western  de 
velopment,  the  people  have  had  to  grapple  with  larger  areas, 


86  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

with  vaster  combinations.  The  little  colony  of  Massachusetts 
veterans*  that  settled  at  Marietta  received  a  land  grant  as 
large  as  the  State  of  Rhode  Island.  The  band  of  Connecti 
cut  pioneers  that  followed  Moses  Cleaveland  to  the  Con 
necticut  Reserve  occupied  a  region  as  large  as  the  parent 
State.  The  area  wrhich  settlers  of  New  England  stock  oc 
cupied  on  the  prairies  of  northern  Illinois  surpassed  the 
combined  area  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode 
Island.  Men  who  had  become  accustomed  to  the  narrow 
valleys  and  the  little  towns  of  the  East  found  themselves  out 
on  the  boundless  spaces  of  the  West  dealing  with  units  of  such 
magnitude  as  dwarfed  their  former  experience.  The  Great 
Lakes,  the  prairies,  the  Great  Plains,  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
the  Mississippi  and  the  Missouri,  furnished  new  standards 
of  measurement  for  the  achievement  of  this  industrial  de 
mocracy.  Individualism  began  to  give  way  to  cooperation 
and  to  governmental  activity.  Even  in  the  earlier  days  of 
the  democratic  conquest  of  the  wilderness,  demands  had 
been  made  upon  the  Government  for  support  in  internal  im 
provements,  but  this  new  West  showed  a  growing  tendency 
to  call  to  its  assistance  the  powerful  arm  of  National  author 
ity.  In  the  period  since  the  Civil  War,  the  vast  public  do 
main  has  been  donated  to  the  individual  farmer,  to  States 
for  education,  to  railroads  for  the  construction  of  transpor 
tation  lines.  Moreover,  with  the  advent  of  democracy  in  the 
last  fifteen  years  upon  the  Great  Plains,  new  physical  con 
ditions  have  presented  themselves  which  have  accelerated 
the  social  tendency  of  \Vestern  democracy.  The  pioneer 
farmer  of  the  days  of  Lincoln  could  place  his  family  on  the 
flatboat,  strike  into  the  wilderness,  cut  out  his  clearing,  and 
with  little  or  no  capital  go  on  to  the  achievement  of  indus 
trial  independence.  Even  the  homesteader  on  the  Western 
prairies  found  it  impossible  to  work  out  a  similar  independ 
ent  destiny,  although  the  factor  of  transportation  made  a 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY    87 

serious  and  increasing  impediment  to  the  free  working-out 
of  his  individual  career.  But  when  the  arid  lands  and  the 
mineral  resources  of  the  Far  West  were  reached,  no  con 
quest  was  possible  by  the  old  individual  pioneer  methods. 
Here  expensive  irrigation  works  must  be  constructed,  co 
operative  activity  was  demanded  in  utilization  of  the  water- 
supply,  capital  beyond  the  reach  of  the  small  farmer  was 
required.  In  a  word,  the  physiographic  province  itself  de 
creed  that  the  destiny  of  this  new  frontier  should  be  social 
rather  than  individual. 

Magnitude  of  social  achievement  is  the  watchword  of  the 
democracy  since  the  Civil  War.  From  petty  towns  built  in  the 
marshes,  cities  arose  whose  greatness  and  industrial  power 
are  the  wonder  of  our  time.  The  conditions  were  ideal  for 
the  production  of  captains  of  industry.  The  old  democratic 
admiration  for  the  self-made  man,  its  old  deference  to  the 
rights  of  competitive  individual  development,  together  with 
the  stupendous  natural  resources  that  opened  to  the  conquest 
of  the  keenest  and  the  strongest,  gave  such  conditions  of 
mobility  as  enabled  the  development  of  the  vast  industries 
which  in  our  own  decade  have  marked  the  Wrest. 

Thus,  in  brief,  have  been  outlined  the  large  phases  of  the 
development  of  Western  democracy  in  the  different  areas 
which  it  has  conquered.  There  has  been  a  steady  develop 
ment  of  the  industrial  ideal,  and  a  steady  increase  of  the 
social  tendency,  in  this  later  movement  of  Western  democ 
racy.  While  the  individualism  of  the  frontier,  so  prominent 
in  the  earliest  days  of  the  Western  advance,  has  been  pre 
served  as  an  ideal,  more  and  more  these  individuals  strug 
gling  each  with  the  other,  dealing  with  vaster  and  vaster 
areas,  with  larger  and  larger  problems,  have  found  it  neces 
sary  to  combine  under  the  leadership  of  the  strongest.  This 
is  the  explanation  of  the  rise  of  those  preeminent  captains  of 
industry  whose  genius  has  concentrated  capital  to  control 


38  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

the  fundamental  resources  of  the  Nation.  If  now  in  the 
way  of  recapitulation,  we  try  to  pick  out  from  the  influences 
that  have  gone  to  the  making  of  Western  democracy  the 
factors  which  constitute  the  net  result  of  this  movement, 
we  shall  have  to  mention  at  least  the  following:  — 

Most  important  of  all  has  been  the  fact  that  an  area  of 
free  land  has  continually  lain  on  the  western  border  of  the 
settled  area  of  the  United  States.  Whenever  social  condi 
tions  tended  to  crystallize  in  the  East,  whenever  capital 
tended  to  press  upon  labor  or  political  restraints  to  impede 
the  freedom  of  the  mass,  there  was  this  gate  of  escape  to  the 
free  conditions  of  the  frontier.  These  free  lands  promoted 
individualism,  economic  equality,  freedom  to  rise,  democ 
racy.  Men  would  not  accept  inferior  wages  and  a  perma 
nent  position  of  social  subordination  when  this  promised 
land  of  freedom  and  equality  was  theirs  for  the  taking.  Who 
would  rest  content  under  oppressive  legislative  conditions 
when  with  a  slight  effort  he  might  reach  a  land  wherein  to 
become  a  co-worker  in  the  building  of  free  cities  and  free 
States  on  the  lines  of  his  own  ideal?  In  a  word,  then,  free 
lands  meant  free  opportunities.  Their  existence  has  differ 
entiated  the  American  democracy  from  the  democracies 
which  have  preceded  it,  because  ever,  as  democracy  in  the 
East  took  the  form  of  a  highly  specialized  and  complicated 
industrial  society,  in  the  West  it  kept  in  touch  with  primi 
tive  conditions,  and  by  action  and  reaction  these  two  forces 
have  shaped  our  history. 

In  the  next  place,  these  free  lands  and  this  treasury  of  in 
dustrial  resources  have  existed  over  such  vast  spaces  that 
they  have  demanded  of  democracy  increasing  spaciousness 
of  design  and  power  of  execution.  Western  democracy  is 
contrasted  with  the  democracy  of  all  other  times  in  the  large 
ness  of  the  tasks  to  which  it  has  set  its  hand,  and  in  the  vast 
achievements  which  it  has  wrought  out  in  the  control  of 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY    89 

nature  and  of  politics.  Upon  the  region  of  the  Middle  West 
alone  could  be  set  down  all  of  the  great  countries  of  central 
Europe,  —  France,  Germany,  Italy,  and  Austro-Hungary, 
—  and  there  would  still  be  a  liberal  margin.  It  would  be 
difficult  to  over-emphasize  the  importance  of  this  training 
upon  democracy.  Never  before  in  the  history  of  the  world 
has  a  democracy  existed  on  so  vast  an  area  and  handled 
things  in  the  gross  with  such  success,  with  such  largeness  of 
design,  and  such  grasp  upon  the  means  of  execution.  In 
short,  democracy  has  learned  in  the  West  of  the  United 
States  how  to  deal  with  the  problem  of  magnitude.  The  old 
historic  democracies  were  but  little  States  with  primitive 
economic  conditions. 

But  the  very  task  of  dealing  with  vast  resources,  over  vast 
areas,  under  the  conditions  of  free  competition  furnished  by 
the  West,  has  produced  the  rise  of  those  captains  of  industry 
whose  success  in  consolidating  economic  power  now  raises 
the  question  as  to  whether  democracy  under  such  condi 
tions  can  survive.  For  the  old  military  type  of  Western 
leaders  like  George  Rogers  Clark,  Andrew  Jackson,  and 
William  Henry  Harrison  have  been  substituted  such  in 
dustrial  leaders  as  James  Hill,  John  D.  Rockefeller,  and 
Andrew  Carnegie. 

The  question  is  imperative,  then,  What  ideals  persist  from 
this  democratic  experience  of  the  West;  and  have  they  ac 
quired  sufficient  momentum  to  sustain  themselves  under 
conditions  so  radically  unlike  those  in  the  days  of  their  ori 
gin?  In  other  words,  the  question  put  at  the  beginning  of 
this  discussion  becomes  pertinent.  Under  the  forms  of  the 
American  democracy  is  there  in  reality  evolving  such  a  con 
centration  of  economic  and  social  power  in  the  hands  of  a 
comparatively  few  men  as  may  make  political  democracy 
an  appearance  rather  than  a  reality?  The  free  lands  are 
gone.  The  material  forces  that  gave  vitality  to  Western 


90  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

democracy  are  passing  away.  It  is  to  the  realm  of  the  spirit, 
to  the  domain  of  ideals  and  legislation,  that  we  must  look  for 
Western  influence  upon  democracy  in  our  own  days. 

Western  democracy  has  been  from  the  time  of  its  birth 
idealistic.  The  very  fact  of  the  wilderness  appealed  to  men 
as  a  fair,  blank  page  on  which  to  write  a  new  chapter  in  the 
story  of  man's  struggle  for  a  higher  type  of  society.  The 
Western  wilds,  from  the  Alleghanies  to  the  Pacific,  consti 
tuted  the  richest  free  gift  that  was  ever  spread  out  before 
civilized  man.  To  the  peasant  and  artisan  of  the  Old  World, 
bound  by  the  chains  of  social  class,  as  old  as  custom  and  as 
inevitable  as  fate,  the  West  offered  an  exit  into  a  free  life 
and  greater  well-being  among  the  bounties  of  nature,  into 
the  midst  of  resources  that  demanded  manly  exertion,  and 
that  gave  in  return  the  chance  for  indefinite  ascent  in  the 
scale  of  social  advance.  "To  each  she  offered  gifts  after  his 
will."  Never  again  can  such  an  opportunity  come  to  the 
sons  of  men.  It  was  unique,  and  the  thing  is  so  near  us,  so 
much  a  part  of  our  lives,  that  we  do  not  even  yet  comprehend 
its  vast  significance.  The  existence  of  this  land  of  opportu 
nity  has  made  America  the  goal  of  idealists  from  the  days 
of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers.  With  all  the  materialism  of  the 
pioneer  movements,  this  idealistic  conception  of  the  vacant 
lands  as  an  opportunity  for  a  new  order  of  things  is  unmis 
takably  present.  Kipling's  "Song  of  the  English"  has  given 
it  expression :  — 

"We  were  dreamers,  dreaming  greatly,  in  the  man-stifled  town; 

We  yearned  beyond  the  sky-line  where  the  strange  roads  go  down. 

Came  the  Whisper,  came  the  Vision,  came  the  Power  with  the  Need. 

Till  the  Soul  that  is  not  man's  soul  was  lent  us  to  lead. 

As  the  deer  breaks  —  as  the  steer  breaks  —  from  the  herd  where  they 

graze, 

In  the  faith  of  little  children  we  went  on  our  ways. 

Then  the  wood  failed  —  then  the  food  failed  —  then  the  last  water  dried  — 
In  the  faith  of  little  children  we  lay  down  and  died. 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO^  DEMOCRACY     91 

"On  the  sand-drift  —  on  the  veldt-side  —  in  the  fern-scrub  we  lay. 
That  our  sons  might  follow  after  by  the  bones  on  the  way. 
Follow  after  —  follow  after!  We  have  watered  the  root 
And  the  bud  has  come  to  blossom  that  ripens  for  fruit! 
Follow  after  —  we  are  waiting  by  the  trails  that  we  lost 
For  the  sound  of  many  footsteps,  for  the  tread  of  a  host. 

"  Follow  after  —  follow  after  —  for  the  harvest  is  sown: 

By  the  bones  about  the  wayside  ye  shall  come  to  your  own!" 

This  was  the  vision  that  called  to  Roger  Williams,  —  that 
"prophetic  soul  ravished  of  truth  disembodied,"  "unable 
to  enter  into  treaty  with  its  environment,"  and  forced  to 
seek  the  wilderness.  "Oh,  how  sweet,"  wrote  William  Penn, 
from  his  forest  refuge,  "is  the  quiet  of  these  parts,  freed 
from  the  troubles  and  perplexities  of  woeful  Europe."  And 
here  he  projected  what  he  called  his  "Holy  Experiment  in 
Government." 

If  the  later  West  offers  few  such  striking  illustrations  of 
the  relation  of  the  wilderness  to  idealistic  schemes,  and  if 
some  of  the  designs  were  fantastic  and  abortive,  none  the 
less  the  influence  is  a  fact.  Hardly  a  Western  State  but  has 
been  the  Mecca  of  some  sect  or  band  of  social  reformers, 
anxious  to  put  into  practice  their  ideals,  in  vacant  land,  far 
removed  from  the  checks  of  a  settled  form  of  social  organi 
zation.  Consider  the  Dunkards,  the  Icarians,  the  Fourier- 
ists,  the  Mormons,  and  similar  idealists  who  sought  our 
Western  wilds.  But  the  idealistic  influence  is  not  limited  to 
the  dreamers'  conception  of  a  new  State.  It  gave  to  the 
pioneer  farmer  and  city  builder  a  restless  energy,  a  quick 
capacity  for  judgment  and  action,  a  belief  in  liberty,  free 
dom  of  opportunity,  and  a  resistance  to  the  domination  of 
class  which  infused  a  vitality  and  power  into  the  individ 
ual  atoms  of  this  democratic  mass.  Even  as  he  dwelt  among 
the  stumps  of  his  newly  cut  clearing,  the  pioneer  had  the 
creative  vision  of  a  new  order  of  society.  In  imagination  he 


92  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

pushed  back  the  forest  boundary  to  the  confines  of  a  mighty 
Commonwealth;  he  willed  that  log  cabins  should  become 
the  lofty  buildings  of  great  cities.  He  decreed  that  his  chil 
dren  should  enter  into  a  heritage  of  education,  comfort,  and 
social  welfare,  and  for  this  ideal  he  bore  the  scars  of  the  wil 
derness.  Possessed  with  this  idea  he  ennobled  his  task  and 
laid  deep  foundations  for  a  democratic  State.  Nor  was  this 
idealism  by  any  means  limited  to  the  American  pioneer. 

To  the  old  native  democratic  stock  has  been  added  a  vast 
army  of  recruits  from  the  Old  World.  There  are  in  the 
Middle  West  alone  four  million  persons  of  German  parent 
age  out  of  a  total  of  seven  millions  in  the  country.  Over  a 
million  persons  of  Scandinavian  parentage  live  in  the  same 
region.  This  immigration  culminated  in  the  early  eighties, 
and  although  there  have  been  fluctuations  since,  it  long  con 
tinued  a  most  extraordinary  phenomenon.  The  democracy 
of  the  newer  West  is  deeply  affected  by  the  ideals  brought 
by  these  immigrants  from  the  Old  World.  To  them  America 
was  not  simply  a  new  home ;  it  was  a  land  of  opportunity,  of 
freedom,  of  democracy.  It  meant  to  them,  as  to  the  Amer 
ican  pioneer  that  preceded  them,  the  opportunity  to  de 
stroy  the  bonds  of  social  caste  that  bound  them  in  their  older 
home,  to  hew  out  for  themselves  in  a  new  country  a  destiny 
proportioned  to  the  powers  that  God  had  given  them,  a 
chance  to  place  their  families  under  better  conditions  and  to 
win  a  larger  life  than  the  life  that  they  had  left  behind.  He 
who  believes  that  even  the  hordes  of  recent  immigrants  from 
southern  Italy  are  drawn  to  these  shores  by  nothing  more 
than  a  dull  and  blind  materialism  has  not  penetrated  into 
the  heart  of  the  problem.  The  idealism  and  expectation  of 
these  children  of  the  Old  World,  the  hopes  which  they  have 
formed  for  a  newer  and  freer  life  across  the  seas,  are  almost 
pathetic  when  one  considers  how  far  they  are  from  the  pos 
sibility  of  fruition.  He  who  would  take  stock  of  American 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY     93 

democracy  must  not  forget  the  accumulation  of  human 
purposes  and  ideals  which  immigration  has  added  to  the 
American  populace. 

In  this  connection  it  must  also  be  remembered  that  these 
democratic  ideals  have  existed  at  each  stage  of  the  advance 
of  the  frontier,  and  have  left  behind  them  deep  and  endur 
ing  effects  on  the  thinking  of  the  whole  country.  Long  after 
the  frontier  period  of  a  particular  region  of  the  United  States 
has  passed  away,  the  conception  of  society,  the  ideals  and 
aspirations  which  it  produced,  persist  in  the  minds  of  the 
people.  So  recent  has  been  the  transition  of  the  greater  por 
tion  of  the  United  States  from  frontier  conditions  to  condi 
tions  of  settled  life,  that  we  are,  over  the  larger  portion  of 
the  United  States,  hardly  a  generation  removed  from  the 
primitive  conditions  of  the  West.  If,  indeed,  we  ourselves 
were  not  pioneers,  our  fathers  were,  and  the  inherited  ways 
of  looking  at  things,  the  fundamental  assumptions  of  the 
American  people,  have  all  been  shaped  by  this  experience 
of  democracy  on  its  westward  march.  This  experience  has 
been  wrought  into  the  very  warp  and  woof  of  American 
thought.  Even  those  masters  of  industry  and  capital  who 
have  risen  to  power  by  the  conquest  of  Western  resources 
came  from  the  midst  of  this  society  and  still  profess  its  prin 
ciples.  John  D.  Rockefeller  was  born  on  a  New  York  farm, 
and  began  his  career  as  a  young  business  man  in  St.  Louis. 
Marcus  Hanna  was  a  Cleveland  grocer's  clerk  at  the  age  of 
twenty.  Claus  Spreckles,  the  sugar  king,  came  from  Ger 
many  as  a  steerage  passenger  to  the  United  States  in  1848. 
Marshal  Field  was  a  farmer  boy  in  Conway ,  Massachusetts, 
until  he  left  to  grow  up  with  the  young  Chicago.  Andrew 
Carnegie  came  as  a  ten-year-old  boy  from  Scotland  to  Pitts 
burgh,  then  a  distinctively  Western  town.  He  built  up  his 
fortunes  through  successive  grades  until  he  became  the 
dominating  factor  in  the  great  iron  industries,  and  paved 


94  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

the  way  for  that  colossal  achievement,  the  Steel  Trust. 
Whatever  may  be  the  tendencies  of  this  corporation,  there 
can  be  little  doubt  of  the  democratic  ideals  of  Mr.  Carnegie 
himself.  With  lavish  hand  he  has  strewn  millions  through 
the  United  States  for  the  promotion  of  libraries.  The  effect 
of  this  library  movement  in  perpetuating  the  democracy 
that  comes  from  an  intelligent  and  self-respecting  people 
can  hardly  be  measured.  In  his  Triumphant  Democracy, 
published  in  1886,  Mr.  Carnegie,  the  ironmaster,  said,  in 
reference  to  the  mineral  wealth  of  the  United  States : 
"Thank  God,  these  treasures  are  in  the  hands  of  an  intelli 
gent  people,  the  Democracy,  to  be  used  for  the  general  good 
of  the  masses,  and  not  made  the  spoils  of  monarchs,  courts, 
and  aristocracy,  to  be  turned  to  the  base  and  selfish  ends  of 
a  privileged  hereditary  class."  It  would  be  hard  to  find  a 
more  rigorous  assertion  of  democratic  doctrine  than  the 
celebrated  utterance,  attributed  to  the  same  man,  that  he 
should  feel  it  a  disgrace  to  die  rich. 

In  enumerating  the  services  of  American  democracy, 
President  Eliot  includes  the  corporation  as  one  of  its  achieve 
ments,  declaring  that  "freedom  of  incorporation,  though  no 
longer  exclusively  a  democratic  agency,  has  given  a  strong 
support  to  democratic  institutions."  In  one  sense  this  is 
doubtless  true,  since  the  corporation  has  been  one  of  the 
means  by  which  small  properties  can  be  aggregated  into  an 
effective  working  body.  Socialistic  writers  have  long  been 
fond  of  pointing  out  also  that  these  various  concentrations 
pave  the  way  for  and  make  possible  social  control.  From 
this  point  of  view  it  is  possible  that  the  masters  of  industry 
may  prove  to  be  not  so  much  an  incipient  aristocracy  as  the 
pathfinders  for  democracy  in  reducing  the  industrial  world 
to  systematic  consolidation  suited  to  democratic  control. 
The  great  geniuses  that  have  built  up  the  modern  indus 
trial  concentration  were  trained  in  the  midst  of  democratic 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY     05 

society.  They  were  the  product  of  these  democratic  condi 
tions.  Freedom  to  rise  was  the  very  condition  of  their  ex 
istence.  Whether  they  will  be  followed  by  successors  who  will 
adopt  the  exploitation  of  the  masses,  and  who  will  be  capa- 
able  of  retaining  under  efficient  control  these  vast  resources, 
is  one  of  the  questions  which  we  shall  have  to  face. 

This,  at  least,  is  clear:  American  democracy  is  funda 
mentally  the  outcome  of  the  experiences  of  the  American 
people  in  dealing  with  the  West.  Western  democracy 
through  the  whole  of  its  earlier  period  tended  to  the  pro 
duction  of  a  society  of  which  the  most  distinctive  fact  was 
the  freedom  of  the  individual  to  rise  under  conditions  of 
social  mobility,  and  whose  ambition  was  the  liberty  and  well- 
being  of  the  masses.  This  conception  has  vitalized  all  Amer 
ican  democracy,  and  has  brought  it  into  sharp  contrasts  with 
the  democracies  of  history,  and  with  those  modern  efforts 
of  Europe  to  create  an  artificial  democratic  order  by  legisla 
tion.  The  problem  of  the  United  States  is  not  to  create  de 
mocracy,  but  to  conserve  democratic  institutions  and  ideals. 
In  the  later  period  of  its  development,  Western  democracy 
has  been  gaining  experience  in  the  problem  of  social  control. 
It  has  steadily  enlarged  the  sphere  of  its  action  and  the  in 
struments  for  its  perpetuation.  By  its  system  of  public 
schools,  from  the  grades  to  the  graduate  work  of  the  great 
universities,  the  West  has  created  a  larger  single  body  of  in 
telligent  plain  people  than  can  be  found  elsewhere  in  the 
world.  Its  educational  forces  are  more  democratic  than  those 
of  the  East,  and  counting  the  common  schools  and  colleges 
together,  the  Middle  West  alone  has  twice  as  many  students 
as  New  England  and  the  Middle  States  combined.  Its  po 
litical  tendencies,  whether  we  consider  Democracy,  Popu 
lism,  or  Republicanism,  are  distinctly  in  the  direction  of 
greater  social  control  and  the  conservation  of  the  old  demo 
cratic  ideals.  To  these  ideals  the  WTest  as  a  whole  adheres 


96  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

with  even  a  passionate  determination.  If,  in  working  out  its 
mastery  of  the  resources  of  the  interior,  it  has  produced  a 
type  of  industrial  leader  so  powerful  as  to  be  the  wonder  of 
the  world,  nevertheless,  it  is  still  to  be  determined  whether 
these  men  constitute  a  menace  to  democratic  institutions,  or 
the  most  efficient  factor  for  adjusting  democratic  control  to 
the  new  conditions. 

Whatever  shall  be  the  outcome  of  the  rush  of  this  huge  in 
dustrial  modern  United  States  to  its  place  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth,  the  formation  of  its  Western  democracy  will 
always  remain  one  of  the  wonderful  chapters  in  the  history 
of  the  human  race.  Into  this  vast  shaggy  continent  of  ours 
poured  the  first  feeble  tide  of  European  settlement.  Euro 
pean  men,  institutions,  and  ideas  were  lodged  in  the  Ameri 
can  wilderness,  and  this  great  American  West  took  theni  to 
her  bosom,  taught  them  a  new  way  of  looking  upon  the 
destiny  of  the  common  man,  trained  them  in  adaptation  to 
the  conditions  of  the  New  World,  to  the  creation  of  new  in 
stitutions  to  meet  new  needs,  and  ever  as  society  on  her 
eastern  border  grew  to  resemble  the  Old  World  in  its  social 
forms  and  its  industry,  ever,  as  it  began  to  lose  faith  in  the 
ideals  of  democracy,  she  opened  new  provinces,  and  dowered 
new  democracies  in  her  most  distant  domains  with  her  ma 
terial  treasures  and  with  the  ennobling  influence  that  the 
fierce  love  of  freedom,  the  strength  that  came  from  hewing 
out  a  home,  making  a  school  and  a  church,  and  creating  a 
higher  future  for  his  family,  furnished  to  the  pioneer.  She 
gave  to  the  world  such  types  as  the  farmer  Thomas  Jefferson, 
with  his  Declaration  of  Independence,  his  statute  for  reli 
gious  toleration,  and  his  purchase  of  Louisiana.  She  gave  us 
Andrew  Jackson,  that  fierce  Tennessee  spirit  who  broke 
down  the  traditions  of  conservative  rule,  swept  away  the 
privacies  and  privileges  of  officialdom,  and,  like  a  Gothic 
leader,  opened  the  temple  of  the  Nation  to  the  populace. 


CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  WEST  TO  DEMOCRACY    97 

She  gave  us  Abraham  Lincoln,  whose  gaunt  frontier  form 
and  gnarled,  massive  hand  told  of  the  conflict  with  the 
forest,  whose  grasp  of  the  axe-handle  of  the  pioneer  was  no 
firmer  than  his  grasp  of  the  helm  of  the  ship  of  State  as  it 
breasted  the  seas  of  civil  war.  She  gave  us  the  tragedy  of  the 
pioneer  farmer  as  he  marched  daringly  on  to  the  conquest  of 
the  arid  lands,  and  met  his  first  defeat  by  forces  too  strong 
to  be  dealt  with  under  the  old  conditions.  She  has  fur 
nished  to  this  new  democracy  her  stores  of  mineral  wealth, 
that  dwarf  those  of  the  Old  World,  and  her  provinces  that 
in  themselves  are  vaster  and  more  productive  than  most  of 
the  nations  of  Europe.  Out  of  her  bounty  has  come  a  Na 
tion  whose  industrial  competition  alarms  the  Old  World,  and 
the  masters  of  whose  resources  wield  wealth  and  power 
vaster  than  the  wealth  and  power  of  kings.  Best  of  all,  the 
West  gave,  not  only  to  the  American,  but  to  the  unhappy 
and  oppressed  of  all  lands,  a  vision  of  hope,  and  assurance 
that  the  world  held  a  place  where  were  to  be  found  high 
faith  in  man  and  the  will  and  power  to  furnish  him  the  op 
portunity  tp  grow  to  the  full  measure  of  his  own  capacity. 
Great  and  powerful  as  are  the  new  sons  of  her  loins,  the 
Republic  is  greater  than  they.  The  paths  of  the  pioneer 
have  widened  into  broad  highways.  The  forest  clearing  has 
expanded  into  affluent  Commonwealths.  Let  us  see  to  it 
that  the  ideals  of  the  pioneer  in  his  log  cabin  shall  enlarge 
into  the  spiritual  life  of  a  democracy  where  civic  power 
shall  dominate  and  utilize  individual  achievement  for  the 
common  good.  f 


THE  PRESENT  CRISIS1 
JAMES  RUSSELL  LOWELL 

WHEN  a  deed  is  done  for  Freedom,  through  the  broad  earth's 

aching  breast 
Runs  a  thrill  of  joy  prophetic,  trembling  on  from  east  to 

west, 
And  the  slave,  where'er  he  cowers,  feels  the  soul  within  him 

climb 

To  the  awful  verge  of  manhood,  as  the  energy  sublime 
Of  a  century  bursts  full-blossomed  on  the  thorny  stem  of 

Time. 

Through  the  walls  of  hut  and  palace  shoots  the  instantane 
ous  throe, 
When  the  travail  of  the  Ages  wrings  earth's  systems  to  and 

fro; 

At  the  birth  of  each  new  Era,  with  a  recognizing  start, 
Nation  wildly  looks  at  nation,  standing  with  mute  lips  apart, 
And  glad  Truth's  yet  mightier  man-child  leaps  beneath  the 
Future's  heart. 

So  the  Evil's  triumph  sendeth,  with  a  terror  and  a  chill, 
Under  continent  to  continent,  the  sense  of  coming  ill, 
And  the  slave,  where'er  he  cowers,  feels  his  sympathies  with 

God 
In  hot  tear-drops  ebbing  earthward,  to  be  drunk  up  by  the 

sod, 
Till  a  corpse  crawls  round  unburied,  delving  in  the  nobler 

dod. 

1  Written  in  December,  1844. 


THE  PRESENT  CRISIS  99 

For  mankind  are  one  in  spirit,  and  an  instinct  bears  along, 
Round  the  earth's  electric  circle,  the  swift  flash  of  right  or 

wrong; 
Whether  conscious  or  unconscious,  yet  Humanity's  vast 

frame 
Through  its  ocean-sundered  fibres  feels  the  gush  of  joy  or 

shame;  — 
In  the  gain  or  loss  of  one  race  all  the  rest  have  equal  claim. 

Once  to  every  man  and  nation  comes  the  moment  to  decide, 
In  the  strife  of  Truth  with  Falsehood,  for  the  good  or  evil 

side; 
Some  great  cause,  God's  new  Messiah,  offering  each  the 

bloom  or  blight, 
Parts  the  goats  upon  the  left  hand,  and  the  sheep  upon  the 

right, 
And  the  choice  goes  by  forever  'twixt  that  darkness  and  that 

light. 

Hast  thou  chosen,  O  my  people,  on  whose  party  thou  shalt 

stand, 
Ere  the  Doom  from  its  worn  sandals  shakes  the  dust  against 

our  land? 
Though  the  cause  of  Evil  prosper,  yet  't  is  Truth  alone  is 

strong, 

And,  albeit  she  wander  outcast  now,  I  see  around  her  throng 
Troops  of  beautiful,  tall  angels,  to  enshield  her  from  all 

wrong. 

Backward  look  across  the  ages  and  the  beacon-moments 

see, 
That,  like  peaks  of   some   sunk  continent,  jut   through 

Oblivion's  sea; 
Not  an  ear  in  court  or  market  for  the  low  foreboding  cry 


100  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

Of  those  Crises,  God's  stern  winnowers,  from  whose  feet 

earth's  chaff  must  fly; 
Never  shows  the  choice  momentous  till  the  judgment  hath 

passed  by. 

x 

Careless  seems  the  great  Avenger;  history's  pages  but  re 
cord 

One  death-grapple  in  the  darkness  'twixt  old  systems  and 
the  Word; 

Truth  forever  on  the  scaffold,  Wrong  forever  on  the 
throne,  — 

Yet  that  scaffold  sways  the  future,  and,  behind  the  dim  un 
known, 

Standeth  God  within  the  shadow,  keeping  watch  above  his 
own. 

We  see  dimly  in  the  Present  what  is  small  and  what  is 
great, 

Slow  of  faith  how  weak  an  arm  may  turn  the  iron  helm  of 
fate, 

But  the  soul  is  still  oracular;  amid  the  market's  din, 

List  the  ominous  stern  whisper  from  the  Delphic  cave 
within,  — 

"They  enslave  their  children's  children  who  make  compro 
mise  with  sin." 

Slavery,  the  earth-born  Cyclops,  fellest  of  the  giant  brood, 
Sons  of  brutish  Force  and  Darkness,  who  have  drenched 

the  earth  with  blood, 
Famished  in  his  self-made  desert,  blinded  by  our  purer 

day, 

Gropes  in  yet  unblasted  regions  for  his  miserable  prey;  — 
Shall  we  guide  his  gory  fingers  where  our  helpless  children 

play? 


THE  PRESENT  CRISIS  101 

Then  to  side  with  Truth  is  noble  when  we  share  her  wretched 

crust, 
Ere  her  cause  bring  fame  and  profit,  and  't  is  prosperous  to 

be  just; 
Then  it  is  the  brave  man  chooses,  while  the  coward  stands 

aside, 

Doubting  in  his  abject  spirit,  till  his  Lord  is  crucified, 
And  the  multitude  make  virtue  of  the  faith  they  had  denied. 

-         ** 

Count  me  o'er  earth's  chosen  heroes,  —  they  were  souls  that 
stood  alone, 

While  the  men  they  agonized  for  hurled  the  contumelious 
stone, 

Stood  serene,  and  down  the  future  saw  the  golden  beam  in 
cline 

To  the  side  of  perfect  justice,  mastered  by  their  faith 
divine, 

By  one  man's  plain  truth  to  manhood  and  to  God's  supreme 
design. 

By  the  light  of  burning  heretics  Christ's  bleeding  feet  I 

track, 
Toiling  up  new  Calvaries  ever  with  the  cross  that  turns  not 

back, 
And  these  mounts  of  anguish  number  how  each  generation 

learned 
One  new  word  of  that  grand  Credo  which  in  prophet-hearts 

hath  burned 
Since  the  first  man  stood  God-conquered  with  his  face  to 

heaven  upturned. 

For  Humanity  sweeps  onward:  where  to-day  the  martyr 

stands, 
On  the  morrow  crouches  Judas  with  the  silver  in  his  hands; 


102  AMERICAN  -DEMOCRACY 

Far  in  front  the  cross  stands  ready  and  the  crackling  fagots 

burn, 

While  the  hooting  mob  of  yesterday  in  silent  awe  return 
To  glean  up  the  scattered  ashes  into  History's  golden  urn. 

'T  is  as  easy  to  be  heroes  as  to  sit  the  idle  slaves 

Of  a  legendary  virtue  carved  upon  our  fathers'  graves, 

Worshippers  of  light  ancestral  make  the  present  light  a 

crime;  — 
Was  the  Mayflower  launched  by  cowards,  steered  by  men 

behind  their  time? 

Turn  those  tracks  toward  Past  or  Future,  that  make  Ply 
mouth  Rock  sublime? 

They  were  men  of  present  valor,  stalwart  old  iconoclasts, 
Unconvinced  by  axe  or  gibbet  that  all   virtue  was  the 

Past's; 
But  we  make  their  truth  our  falsehood,  thinking  that  hath 

made  us  free, 
Hoarding  it  in  mouldy  parchments,  while  our  tender  spirits 

flee 
The  rude  grasp  of  that  great  Impulse  which  drove  them 

across  the  sea. 

They  have  rights  who  dare  maintain  them;  we  are  traitors 
to  our  sires, 

Smothering  in  their  holy  ashes  Freedom's  new-lit  altar- 
fires; 

Shall  we  make  their  creed  our  jailer?  Shall  we,  in  our  haste 
to  slay, 

From  the  tombs  of  the  old  prophets  steal  the  funeral  lamps 
away 

To  light  up  the  martyr-fagots  round  the  prophets  of  to 
day? 


THE  PRESENT  CRISIS  103 

New  occasions  teach  new  duties;  Time  makes  ancient  good 
uncouth ; 

They  must  upward  still,  and  onward,  who  would  keep 
abreast  of  Truth ; 

Lo,  before  us  gleam  her  camp-fires !  we  ourselves  must  Pil 
grims  be, 

Launch  our  Mayflower,  and  steer  boldly  through  the  desper 
ate  winter  sea, 

Nor  attempt  the  Future's  portal  with  the  Past's  blood- 
rusted  key. 


RISE,  O  DAYS,  FROM   YOUR   FATHOMLESS 
DEEPS  1 

WALT  WHITMAN 


1 

RISE,  O  days,  from  your  fathomless  deeps,  till  you  loftier, 
fiercer  sweep! 

Long  for  my  soul,  hungering  gymnastic,  I  devoured  what 
the  earth  gave  me; 

Lpng  I  roam'd  the  woods  of  the  north  —  long  I  watch'd 
Niagara  pouring; 

I  travel'd  the  prairies  over,  and  slept  on  their  breast  —  I 
cross'd  the  Nevadas,  I  cross'd  the  plateaus; 

I  ascended  the  towering  rocks  along  the  Pacific,  I  sail'd  out 
to  sea; 

I  sail'd  through  the  storm,  I  was  refreshed  by  the  storm; 

I  watch'd  with  joy  the  threatening  maws  of  the  waves; 

I  mark'd  the  white  combs  where  they  career'd  so  high,  curl 
ing  over; 

I  heard  the  wind  piping,  I  saw  the  black  clouds; 

Saw  from  below  what  arose  and  mounted  (O  superb!  O 
wild  as  my  heart,  and  powerful!), 

Heard  the  continuous  thunder,  as  it  bellow'd  after  the  light 
ning; 

Noted  the  slender  and  jagged  threads  of  lightning,  as  sudden 
and  fast  amid  the  din  they  chased  each  other  across 
the  sky; 

1  Included  in  "  Drum-Taps,"  Leaves  of  Grass.    Reprinted  through  the 
generous  permission  of  Mr.  Horace  Traubel. 


RISE,  O  DAYS  105 

—  These,  and  such  as  these,  I,  elate,  saw  —  saw  with  won 
der,  yet  pensive  and  masterful; 

All  the  menacing  might  of  the  globe  uprisen  around  me; 
Yet  there  with  my  soul  I  fed  —  I  fed  content,  supercilious. 


'T  was  well,  O  soul!  't  was  a  good  preparation  you  gave  me ! 
Now  we  advance  our  latent  and  ampler  hunger  to  fill; 
Now  we  go  forth  to  receive  what  the  earth  and  the  sea  never 

gave  us; 
Not  through  the  mighty  woods  we  go,  but  through  the 

mightier  cities; 

Something  for  us  is  pouring  now,  more  than  Niagara  pouring; 
Torrents  of  men   (sources  and  rills  of  the  Northwest,  are 

you  indeed  inexhaustible?), 
What,  to  pavements  and  homesteads  here  —  what  were 

those  storms  of  the  mountains  and  sea? 
What,  to  passions  I  witness  around  me  to-day?    Was  the 

sea  risen? 
Was  the  wind  piping  the  pipe  of  death  under  the  black 

clouds? 
Lo !  from  deeps  more  unfathomable,  something  more  deadly 

and  savage; 
Manhattan,    rising,    advancing    with    menacing    front  — 

Cincinnati,  Chicago,  unchain'd; 
—  What  was  that  swell  I  saw  on  the  ocean?  behold  what 

comes  here! 

How  it  climbs  with  daring  feet  and  hands !  how  it  dashes ! 
How  the  true  thunder  bellows  after  the  lightning!  how 

bright  the  flashes  of  lightning ! 
How  DEMOCRACY,  with  desperate  vengeful  part  strides 

on,  shown  through  the  dark  by  those  flashes  of  light 
ning! 


106  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

(Yet  a  mournful  wail  and  low  sob  I  fancied  I  heard  through 

the  dark, 
In  a  lull  of  the  deafening  confusion.) 


3 

Thunder  on!    stride  on,  Democracy!  strike  with  vengeful 

stroke ! 

And  do  you  rise  higher  than  ever  yet,  O  days,  O  cities! 
Crash  heavier,  heavier  yet,  O  storms !  you  have  done  me  good; 
My  soul,  prepared  in  the  mountains,  absorbs  your  immortal 

strong  nutriment; 

—  Long  had  I  walk'd  my  cities,  my  country  roads,  through 

farms,  only  half -satisfied; 

One  doubt,  nauseous,  undulating  like  a  snake,  crawl'd  on 
the  ground  before  me, 

Continually  preceding  my  steps,  turning  upon  me  oft,  iron 
ically  hissing  low; 

—  The  cities  I  loved  so  well,  I  abandoned  and  left  —  I  sped 

to  the  certainties  suitable  to  me; 
Hungering,  hungering,  hungering,  for  primal  energies,  and 

Nature's  dauntlessness. 

I  refresh'd  myself  with  it  only,  I  could  relish  it  only; 
I  waited  the  bursting  forth  of  the  pent  fire  —  on  the  water 

and  air  I  waited  long; 

—  But  now  I  no  longer  wait  —  I  am  fully  satisfied  —  I  am 

glutted; 
I  have  witnessed  the  true  lightning  —  I  have  witnessed  my 

cities  electric; 
I  have  lived  to  behold  man  burst  forth,  and  warlike  America 

rise; 
Hence  I  will  seek  no  more  the  food  of  the  northern  solitary 

wilds, 
No  more  the  mountains  roam,  or  sail  the  stormy  sea. 


THOU  MOTHER  WITH  THY  EQUAL  BROOD 
WALT  WHITMAN 


THOU  Mother  with  thy  equal  brood, 

Thou  varied  chain  of  different  States,  yet  one  identity  only, 

A  special  song  before  I  go  I  'd  sing  o'er  all  the  rest, 

For  thee,  the  future. 

I  'd  sow  a  seed  for  thee  of  endless  Nationality, 
I  'd  fashion  thy  ensemble  including  body  and  soul, 
I  'd  show  away  ahead  thy  real  Union,  and  how  it  may  be 
accomplish'd. 

The  paths  to  the  house  I  seek  to  make, 
But  leave  to  those  to  come  the  house  itself. 

Belief  I  sing  and  preparation; 

As  Life  and  Nature  are  not  great  with  reference  to  the  pres 
ent  only, 

But  greater  still  from  what  is  yet  to  come, 
Out  of  that  formula  for  thee  I  sing. 


As  a  strong  bird  on  pinions  free, 
Joyous,  the  amplest  spaces  heavenward  cleaving, 
Such  be  the  thought  I  'd  think  of  thee  America, 
Such  be  the  recitative  I  'd  bring  for  thee. 

1  Reprinted  from  Leaves  oj  Grass  through  the  generous  permission  of 
Mr.  Horace  Traubel. 


108  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

The  conceits  of  the  poets  of  other  lands  I'd  bring  thee 

not, 

Nor  the  compliments  that  have  served  their  turn  so  long, 
Nor  rhyme,  nor  the  classics,  nor  perfume  of  foreign  court  or 

indoor  library; 
But  an  odor  I'd  bring  as  from  forests  of  pine  in  Maine,  or 

breath  of  an  Illinois  prairie, 
With  open  airs  of  Virginia  or  Georgia  or  Tennessee,  or  from 

Texas  uplands,  or  Florida's  glades, 
Or  the  Saguenay's  black  stream,  or  the  wide  blue  spread  of 

Huron, 

With  presentment  of  Yellowstone's  scenes,  or  Yosemite, 
And  murmuring  under,  pervading  all,  I  'd  bring  the  rustling 

sea-sound, 
That  endlessly  sounds  from  the  two  Great  Seas  of  the  world. 

And  for  thy  subtler  sense  subtler  refrains  dread  Mother, 
Preludes  of  intellect  tallying  these  and  thee,  mind-formulas 

fitted  for  thee,  real  and  sane  and  large  as  these  and 

thee, 
Thou !  mounting  higher,  diving  deeper  than  we  knew,  thou 

transcendental  Union ! 

By  thee  fact  to  be  justified,  blended  with  thought, 
Thought  of  man  justified,  blended  with  God, 
Through  they  idea,  lo,  the  immortal  reality ! 
Through  thy  reality,  lo,  the  immortal  idea! 

3 

Brain  of  the  New  World,  what  a  task  is  thine, 

To  formulate  the  Modern  —  out  of  the  peerless  grandeur  of 

the  modern, 
Out  of  thyself,  comprising  science,  to  recast  poems,  churches, 

art, 


THOU  MOTHER  WITH  THY  EQUAL  BROOD      109 

(Recast,  may-be  discard  them,  end  them  —  may-be  their 

work  is  done,  who  knows?) 
By  vision,  hand,  conception,  on  the  background  of  the 

mighty  past,  the  dead, 
To  limn  with  absolute  faith  the  mighty  living  present. 

And  yet  thou  living  present  brain,  heir  of  the  dead,  the  Old 

World  brain, 
Thou  that  lay  folded  like  an  unborn  babe  within  its  folds  so 

long, 
Thou  carefully  prepared  by  it  so  long  —  haply  thou  but  un- 

foldest  it,  only  maturest  it, 
It  to  eventuate  in  thee  —  the  essence  of  the  by-gone  time 

contained  in  thee, 
Its  poems,  churches,  arts,  unwitting  to  themselves,  destined 

with  reference  to  thee; 

Thou  but  the  apples,  long,  long,  long  a-growing, 
The  fruit  of  all  the  Old  repining  to-day  in  thee. 


Sail,  sail  thy  best,  ship  of  Democracy, 

Of  value  is  thy  freight,  't  is  not  the  Present  only, 

The  Past  is  also  stored  in  thee, 

Thou  holdest  not  the  venture  of  thyself  alone,  not  of  the 
Western  continent  alone, 

Earth's  resume  entire  floats  on  thy  keel  O  ship,  is  steadied  by 
thy  spars, 

With  thee  Time  voyages  in  trust,  the  antecedent  nations 
sink  or  swim  with  thee. 

With  all  their  ancient  struggles,  martyrs,  heroes,  epics,  wars, 
thou  bear'st  the  other  continents, 

Theirs,  theirs  as  much  as  thine,  the  destination-port  tri 
umphant; 


110  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

Steer  then  with  good  strong  hand  and  wary  eye  O  helms 
man,  thou  carriest  great  companions, 
Venerable  priestly  Asia  sails  this  day  with  thee, 
And  royal  feudal  Europe  sails  with  thee. 


Beautiful  world  of  new  superber  birth  that  rises  to  my  eyes, 
Like  a  limitless  golden  cloud  filling  the  western  sky, 
Emblem  of  general  maternity  lifted  above  all, 
Sacred  shape  of  the  bearer  of  daughters  and  sons, 
Out  of  thy  teeming  womb  thy  giant  babes  in  ceaseless  pro 
cession  issuing, 
Acceding  from  such  gestation,  taking  and  giving  continual 

strength  and  life, 

World  of  the  real  —  world  of  the  twain  in  one, 
World  of  the  soul,  born  by  the  world  of  the  real  alone,  led 

to  identity,  body,  by  it  alone, 
Yet  in  beginning  only,  incalculable  masses  of  composite 

precious  materials, 
By  history's  cycles  forwarded,  by  every  nation,  language, 

hither  sent, 
Ready,  collected  here,  a  freer,  vast,  electric  world,  to  be 

constructed  here, 
(The  true  New  World,  the  world  of  orbic  science,  morals, 

literatures  to  come,) 
Thou  wonder  world  yet  undefined,  unform'd,  neither  do  I 

define  thee, 

How  can  I  pierce  the  impenetrable  blank  of  the  future? 
I  feel  thy  ominous  greatness  evil  as  well  as  good, 
I  watch  thee  advancing,  absorbing  the  present,  transcend 
ing  the  past, 

I  see  thy  light  lighting,  and  thy  shadow  shadowing,  as  if  the 
entire  globe, 


THOU  MOTHER  WITH  THY  EQUAL  BROOD      111 

But  I  do  not  undertake  to  define  thee,  hardly  to  compre 
hend  thee, 

I  but  thee  name,  thee  prophesy,  as  now, 
I  merely  thee  ejaculate ! 

Thee  in  thy  future, 

Thee  in  thy  only  permanent  life,  career,  thy  own  unloosen'd 

rnind,  thy  soaring  spirit, 

Thee  as  another  equally  needed  sun,  radiant,  ablaze,  swift- 
moving,  fructifying  all, 
Thee  risen  in  potent  cheerfulness  and  joy,  in  endless  great 

hilarity, 
Scattering  for  good  the  cloud  that  hung  so  long,  that 

weigh'd  so  long  upon  the  mind  of  man, 
The  doubt,  suspicion,  dread,  of  gradual,  certain  decadence 

of  man; 
Thee  in  thy  larger,  saner  brood  of  female,  male — thee  in  thy 

athletes,  moral,  spiritual,  South,  North,  West,  East, 
(To  thy  immortal  breasts,  Mother  of  All,  thy  every  daugh 
ter,  son,  endear'd  alike,  forever  equal,) 
Thee  in  thy  own  musicians,  singers,  artists,  unborn  yet,  but 

certain, 
Thee  in  thy  moral  wealth  and  civilization,  (until  which  thy 

proudest  material  civilization  must  remain  in  vain,) 
Thee  in  thy  all-supplying,  all-enclosing  worship  —  thee  in 

no  single  bible,  saviour,  merely, 
Thy  saviours  countless,   latent  within  thyself,  thy  bibles 

incessant  within  thyself,  equal  to  any,  divine  as  any, 
(Thy  soaring  course  thee  formulating,  not  in  thy  two  great 

wars,  nor  in  thy  century's  visible  growth, 
But  far  more  in  these  leaves  and  chants,  thy  chants,  great 

Mother!) 
Thee  in  an  education  grown  of  thee,  in  teachers,  studies, 

students,  born  of  thee, 


112  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

Thee  in  thy  democratic  fetes  en-masse,  thy  high  original 
festivals,  operas,  lecturers,  preachers, 

Thee  in  thy  ultimata,  (the  preparations  only  now  completed, 
the  edifice  on  sure  foundations  tied,) 

Thee  in  thy  pinnacles,  intellect,  thought,  thy  topmost  ra 
tional  joys,  thy  love  and  godlike  aspiration, 

In  thy  resplendent  coming  literati,  thy  full-lung'd  orators, 
thy  sacerdotal  bards,  kosmic  savans, 

These!  these  in  thee,  (certain  to  come,)  to-day  I  prophesy. 


6 

Land  tolerating  all,  accepting  all,  not  for  the  good  alone,  all 

good  for  thee, 

Land  in  the  realms  of  God  to  be  a  realm  unto  thyself, 
Under  the  rule  of  God  to  be  a  rule  unto  thyself. 

(Lo,  where  arise  three  peerless  stars, 

To  be  thy  natal  stars  my  country,  Ensemble,  Evolution, 

Freedom, 
Set  in  the  sky  of  Law.) 

Land  of  unprecedented  faith,  God's  faith, 

Thy  soil,  thy  very  subsoil,  all  upheav'd, 

The  general  inner  earth  so  long,  so  sedulously  draped  over, 

now  hence  for  what  it  is  boldly  laid  bare, 
Open'd  by  thee  to  heaven's  light  for  benefit  or  bale. 

Not  for  success  alone, 

Not  to  fair-sail  unintermitted  always, 

The  storm  shall  dash  thy  face,  the  murk  of  war  and  worse 

than  war  shall  cover  thee  all  over, 
(Wert  capable  of  war,  its  tug  and  trials?  be  capable  of  peace, 

its  trials, 


THOU  MOTHER  WITH  THY  EQUAL  BROOD     113 

For  the  tug  and  moral  strain  of  nations  came  at  last  in  pros 
perous  peace,  not  war;) 
In  many  a  smiling  mask  death  shall  approach  beguiling 

thee,  thou  in  disease  shalt  swelter, 
The  livid  cancer  spread  its  hideous  claws,  clinging  upon  thy 

breasts,  seeking  to  strike  thee  deep  within, 
Consumption  of  the  worst,  moral  consumption,  shall  rouge 

thy  face  with  hectic, 
But  thou  shalt  face  thy  fortunes,  thy  diseases,  and  surmount 

them  all, 
Whatever  they  are  to-day  and  whatever  through  time  they 

may  be, 
They  each  and  all  shall  lift  and  pass  away  and  cease  from 

thee, 
While  thou,  Time's  spirals  rounding,  out  of  thyself,  thyself 

still  extricating,  fusing, 
Equable,  natural,  mystical  Union  thou,  (the  mortal  with 

immortal  blent,) 
Shalt  soar  toward  the  fulfilment  of  the  future,  the  spirit  of 

the  body  and  the  mind, 
The  soul,  its  destinies. 

The  soul,  its  destinies,  the  real  real, 
(Purport  of  all  these  apparitions  of  the  real;) 
In  thee  America,  the  soul,  its  destinies, 
Thou  globe  of  globes!  thou  wonder  nebulous! 
By  many  a  throe  of  heat  and  cold  convuls'd,  (by  these  thy 
self  solidifying,) 
Thou  mental,  moral  orb  —  thou  New,  indeed  new,  Spiritual 

World! 

The  Present  holds  thee  not  —  for  such  vast  growth  as  thine, 
For  such  unparallel'd  flight  as  thine,  such  brood  as  thine, 
The  FUTURE  only  holds  thee  and  can  hold  thee. 


A  CHARTER  OF  DEMOCRACY1 
THEODORE  ROOSEVELT 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  and  Members  of  the  Ohio  Constitutional 
Convention:  — 

I  am  profoundly  sensible  of  the  honor  you  have  done  me 
in  asking  me  to  address  you.  You  are  engaged  in  the  funda 
mental  work  of  self-government;  you  are  engaged  in  fram 
ing  a  Constitution  under  and  in  accordance  with  which  the 
people  are  to  get  and  to  do  justice  and  absolutely  to  rule 
themselves.  No  representative  body  can  have  a  higher  task. 
To  carry  it  through  successfully  there  is  need  to  combine 
practical  common  sense  of  the  most  hard-headed  kind  with 
a  spirit  of  lofty  idealism.  Without  idealism  your  work  will 
be  but  a  sordid  makeshift;  and  without  the  hard-headed 
common  sense  the  idealism  will  be  either  wasted  or  worse 
than  wasted. 

I  shall  not  try  to  speak  to  you  of  matters  of  detail.  Each 
of  our  Commonwealths  has  its  own  local  needs,  local  cus 
toms,  and  habits  of  thought,  different  from  those  of  other 
Commonwealths;  and  each  must  therefore  apply  in  its  own 
fashion  the  great  principles  of  our  political  life.  But  these 
principles  themselves  are  in  their  essence  applicable  every 
where,  and  of  some  of  them  I  shall  speak  to  you.  I  cannot 
touch  upon  them  all;  the  subject  is  too  vast  and  the  time  too 
limited;  if  any  one  of  you  cares  to  know  my. views  of  these 
matters  which  I  do  not  to-day  discuss,  I  will  gladly  send  him 

1  An  address  delivered  before  the  Ohio  Constitutional  Convention, 
Columbus,  Ohio,  February,  1912.  Reprinted  (entire,  save  for  the  passage 
on  the  recall  of  judges)  through  the  generous  permission  of  the  author  and 
of  the  Outlook  Publishing  Company. 


A  CHARTER  OF  DEMOCRACY  115 

a  copy  of  the  speeches  I  made  in  1910,  which  I  think  cover 
most  of  the  ground. 

I  believe  in  pure  democracy.  With  Lincoln,  I  hold  that 
"  this  country,  with  its  institutions,  belongs  to  the  people  who 
inhabit  it.  Whenever  they  shall  grow  weary  of  the  existing 
Government,  they  can  exercise  their  constitutional  right  of 
amending  it."  We  Progressives  believe  that  the  people  have 
the  right,  the  power,  and  the  duty  to  protect  themselves  and 
their  own  welfare;  that  human  rights  are  supreme  over  all 
other  rights;  that  wealth  should  be  the  servant,  not  the 
master,  of  the  people.  We  believe  that  unless  representative 
government  does  absolutely  represent  the  people  it  is  not 
representative  government  at  all.  We  test  the  worth  of  all 
men  and  all  measures  by  asking  how  they  contribute  to  the 
welfare  of  the  men,  women,  and  children  of  whom  this  Na 
tion  is  composed.  We  are  engaged  in  one  of  the  great  battles 
of  the  age-long  contest  waged  against  privilege  on  behalf  of 
the  common  welfare.  We  hold  it  a  prime  duty  of  the  people 
to  free  our  Government  from  the  control  of  money  in  politics. 
For  this  purpose  we  advocate,  not  as  ends  in  themselves,  but 
as  weapons  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  all  governmental 
devices  which  will  make  the  representatives  of  the  people 
more  easily  and  certainly  responsible  to  the  people's  will.. 

This  country,  as  Lincoln  said,  belongs  to  the  people.  So 
do  the  natural  resources  which  make  it  rich.  They  supply 
the  basis  of  our  prosperity  now  and  hereafter.  In  preserving 
them,  which  is  a  National  duty,  we  must  not  forget  that 
monopoly  is  based  on  the  control  of  natural  resources  and 
natural  advantages,  and  that  it  will  help  the  people  little  to 
conserve  our  natural  wealth  unless  the  benefits  which  it  can 
yield  are  secured  to  the  people.  Let  us  remember,  also,  that 
Conservation  does  not  stop  with  the  natural  resources,  but 
that  the  principle  of  making  the  best  use  of  all  we  have  re 
quires  with  equal  or  greater  insistence  that  we  shall  stop  the 


116  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

waste  of  human  life  in  industry  and  prevent  the  waste  of 
human  welfare  which  flows  from  the  unfair  use  of  con 
centrated  power  and  wealth  in  the  hands  of  men  whose 
eagerness  for  profit  blinds  them  to  the  cost  of  what  they  do. 
We  have  no  higher  duty  than  to  promote  the  efficiency  of 
the  individual.  There  is  no  silrer  road  to  the  efficiency  of 
the  Nation. 

I  am  emphatically  a  believer  in  constitutionalism,  and 
because  of  this  fact  I  no  less  emphatically  protest  against 
any  theory  that  would  make  of  the  Constitution  a  means  of 
thwarting  instead  of  securing  the  absolute  right  of  the  people 
to  rule  themselves  and  to  provide  for  their  own  social  and 
industrial  well-being.  All  constitutions,  those  of  the  States 
no  less  than  that  of  the  Nation,  are  designed,  and  must  be 
interpreted  and  administered,  so  as  to  fit  human  rights.  Lin 
coln  so  interpreted  and  administered  the  National  Consti 
tution.  Buchanan  attempted  the  reverse,  attempted  to  fit 
human  rights  to,  and  limit  them  by,  the  Constitution.  It 
was  Buchanan  who  treated  the  courts  as  a  fetish,  who  pro 
tested  against  and  condemned  all  criticism  of  the  judges  for 
unjust  and  unrighteous  decisions,  and  upheld  the  Constitu 
tion  as  an  instrument  for  the  protection  of  privilege  and  of 
vested  wrong.  It  was  Lincoln  who  appealed  to  the  people 
against  the  judges  when  the  judges  went  wrong,  who  ad 
vocated  and  secured  what  was  practically  the  recall  of 
the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  who  treated  the  Constitu 
tion  as  a  living  force  for  righteousness.  We  stand  for  ap 
plying  the  Constitution  to  the  issues  of  to-day  as  Lincoln 
applied  it  to  the  issues  of  his  day;  Lincoln,  mind  you,  and 
not  Buchanan,  was  the  real  upholder  and  preserver  of  the 
Constitution,  for  the  true  progressive,  the  progressive  of 
the  Lincoln  stamp,  is  the  only  true  constitutionalist,  the 
only  real  conservative.  The  object  of  every  American  Con 
stitution  worth  calling  such  must  be  what  it  is  set  forth 


A  CHARTER  OF  DEMOCRACY  117 

to  be  in  the  preamble  to  the  National  Constitution,  "to 
establish  justice,"  that  is,  to  secure  justice  as  between 
man  and  man  by  means  of  genuine  popular  self-govern 
ment.  If  the  Constitution  is  successfully  invoked  to  nullify 
the  effort  to  remedy  injustice,  it  is  proof  positive  either 
that  the  Constitution  needs  immediate  amendment  or 
else  that  it  is  being  wrongfully  and  improperly  construed. 
I  therefore  very  earnestly  ask  you  clearly  to  provide  in  this 
Constitution  means  which  will  enable  the  people  readily  to 
amend  it  if  at  any  point  it  works  injustice,  and  also  means 
which  will  permit  the  people  themselves  by  popular  vote, 
after  due  deliberation  and  discussion,  but  finally  and  without 
appeal,  to  settle  what  the  proper  construction  of  any  con 
stitutional  point  is.  It  is  often  said  that  ours  is  a  govern 
ment  of  checks  and  balances.  But  this  should  only  mean 
that  these  checks  and  balances  obtain  as  among  the  several 
different  kinds  of  representatives  of  the  people  —  judicial, 
executive,  and  legislative  —  to  whom  the  people  have  dele 
gated  certain  portions  of  their  power.  It  does  not  mean  that 
the  people  have  parted  with  their  power  or  cannot  resume 
it.  The  "division  of  powers"  is  merely  the  division  among 
the  representatives  of  the  powers  delegated  to  them;  the 
term  must  not  be  held  to  mean  that  the  people  have  divided 
their  power  with  their  delegates.  The  power  is  the  people's, 
and  only  the  people's.  It  is  right  and  proper  that  provision 
should  be  made  rendering  it  necessary  for  the  people  to  take 
ample  time  to  make  up  their  minds  on  any  point ;  but  there 
should  also  be  complete  provision  to  have  their  decision  put 
into  immediate  and  living  effect  when  it  has  thus  been  de 
liberately  and  definitely  reached. 

'  I  hold  it  to  be  the  duty  of  every  public  servant,  and  of 
every  man  who  in  public  or  in  private  life  holds  a  position  of 
leadership  in  thought  or  action,  to  endeavor  honestly  and 
fearlessly  to  guide  his  fellow-countrymen  to  right  decisions ; 


118  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

but  I  emphatically  dissent  from  the  view  that  it  is  either 
wise  or  necessary  to  try  to  devise  methods  which  under  the 
Constitution  will  automatically  prevent  the  people  from  de 
ciding  for  themselves  what  governmental  action  they  deem 
just  and  proper.  It  is  impossible  to  invent  constitutional 
devices  which  will  prevent  the  popular  will  from  being 
effective  for  wrong  without  also  preventing  it  from  being 
effective  for  right.  The  only  safe  course  to  follow  in  this 
great  American  democracy  is  to  provide  for  making  the 
popular  judgment  really  effective.  When  this  is  done,  then 
it  is  our  duty  to  see  that  the  people,  having  the  full  power, 
realize  their  heavy  responsibility  for  exercising  that  power 
aright.  But  it  is  a  false  constitutionalism,  a  false  states 
manship,  to  endeavor  by  the  exercise  of  a  perverted  in 
genuity  to  seem  to  give  the  people  full  power  .and  at  the 
same  time  to  trick  them  out  of  it.  Yet  that  is  precisely  what 
is  done  in  every  case  where  the  State  permits  its  representa 
tives,  whether  on  the  bench  or  in  the  Legislature  or  in  ex 
ecutive  office,  to  declare  that  it  has  not  the  powrer  to  right 
grave  social  wrongs,  or  that  any  of  the  officers  created  by 
the  people,  and  rightfully  the  servants  of  the  people,  can 
set  themselves  up  to  be  the  masters  of  the  people.  Consti 
tution-makers  should  make  it  clear  beyond  shadow  of  doubt 
that  the  people  in  their  legislative  capacity  have  the  power 
to  enact  into  law  any  measure  they  deem  necessary  for  the 
betterment  of  social  and  industrial  conditions.  The  wisdom 
of  framing  any  particular  law  of  this  kind  is  a  proper  sub 
ject  of  debate;  but  the  power  of  the  people  to  enact  the  law 
should  not  be  subject  to  debate.  To  hold  the  contrary  view 
is  to  be  false  to  the  cause  of  the  people,  to  the  cause  of 
American  Democracy.  ^ 

Lincoln,  with  his  clear  vision,  his  ingrained  sense  of  jus 
tice,  and  his  spirit  of  kindly  friendliness  to  all,  forecast 
our  present  struggle  and  saw  the  way  out.  What  he  said 


A  CHARTER  OF  DEMOCRACY  119 

should  be  pondered  by  capitalist  and  workingman  alike. 
He  spoke  as  follows  (I  condense) :  — 

I  hold  that  while  man  exists  it  is  his  duty  to  improve  not  only 
his  condition  but  to  assist  in  ameliorating  mankind.  Labor  is  prior 
to  and  independent  of  capital.  Labor  is  the  superior  of  capital,  and 
deserves  much  the  higher  consideration.  Capital  has  its  rights, 
which  are  as  worthy  of  protection  as  any  other  rights.  Nor  should 
this  lead  to  a  war  upon  property.  Property  is  the  fruit  of  labor. 
Property  is  desirable,  is  a  positive  good  in  the  world.  Let  not  him 
who  is  houseless  pull  down  the  house  of  another,  but  let  him  work 
diligently  and  build  one  for  himself,  thus  by  example  assuring  that 
his  own  shall  be  safe  from  violence  when  built. 

This  last  sentence  characteristically  shows  Lincoln's 
homely,  kindly  common  sense.  His  is  the  attitude  that  we 
ought  to  take.  He  showed  the  proper  sense  of  proportion  in 
his  relative  estimates  of  capital  and  labor,  of  human  rights 
and  the  rights  of  wealth.  Above  all,  in  what  he  thus  said,  as 
on  so  many  other  occasions,  he  taught  the  indispensable 
lesson  of  the  need  of  wise  kindliness  and  charity,  of  sanity 
and  moderation,  in  the  dealings  of  men  one  with  another. 

We  should  discriminate  between  two  purposes  we  have  in 
view.  The  first  is  the  effort  to  provide  what  are  themselves 
the  ends  of  good  government;  the  second  is  the  effort  to 
provide  proper  machinery  for  the  achievement  of  these  ends. 

The  ends  of  good  government  in  our  democracy  are  to 
secure  by  genuine  popular  rule  a  high  average  of  moral  and 
material  wTell-being  among  our  citizens.  It  has  been  well 
said  that  in  the  past  we  have  paid  attention  only  to  the 
accumulation  of  prosperity,  and  that  from  henceforth  we 
must  pay  equal  attention  to  the  proper  distribution  of  pros 
perity.  This  is  true.  The  only  prosperity  worth  having  is 
Ill-it  which  affects  the  mass  of  the  people.  We  are  bound  to 
strive  for  the  fair  distribution  of  prosperity.  But  it  behooves 
us  to  remember  that  there  is  no  use  in  devising  methods  for 


120  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

the  proper  distribution  of  prosperity  unless  the  prosperity 
is  there  to  distribute.  I  hold  it  to  be  our  duty  to  see  that  the 
wage-worker,  the  small  producer,  the  ordinary  consumer, 
shall  get  their  fair  share  of  the  benefit  of  business  prosperity. 
But  it  either  is  or  ought  to  be  evident  to  every  one  that 
business  has  to  prosper  before  anybody  can  get  any  benefit 
from  it.  Therefore  I  hold  that  he  is  the  real  progressive, 
that  he  is  the  genuine  champion  of  the  people,  wTho  endeav 
ors  to  shape  the  policy  alike  of  the  Nation  and  of  the  several 
States  so  as  to  encourage  legitimate  and  honest  business  at 
the  same  time  that  he  wars  against  all  crookedness  and  in 
justice  and  unfairness  and  tyranny  in  the  business  world 
(for  of  course  we  can  only  get  business  put  on  a  basis  of 
permanent  prosperity  when  the  element  of  injustice  is  taken 
out  of  it) .  This  is  the  reason  why  I  have  for  so  many  years 
insisted,  as  regards  our  National  Government,  that  it  is 
both  futile  and  mischievous  to  endeavor  to  correct  the  evils 
of  big  business  by  an  attempt  to  restore  business  conditions 
as  they  were  in  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  before  rail 
ways  and  telegraphs  had  rendered  larger  business  organiza 
tions  both  inevitable  and  desirable.  The  effort  to  restore  such 
conditions,  and  to  trust  for  justice  solely  to  such  proposed 
restoration,  is  as  foolish  as  if  we  should  attempt  to  arm  our 
troops  with  the  flintlocks  of  Washington's  Continentals  in 
stead  of  with  modern  weapons  of  precision.  Flintlock  legis 
lation,  of  the  kind  that  seeks  to  prohibit  all  combinations, 
good  or  bad,  is  bound  to  fail,  and  the  effort,  in  so  far  as  it 
accomplishes  anything  at  all,  merely  means  that  some  of  the 
worst  combinations  are  not  checked,  and  that  honest  busi 
ness  is  checked.  What  is  needed  is,  first,  the  recognition 
that  modern  business  conditions  have  come  to  stay,  in  so 
far  at  least  as  these  conditions  mean  that  business  must  be 
done  in  larger  units,  and  then  the  cool-headed  and  resolute 
determination  to  introduce  an  effective  method  of  regulat- 


A  CHARTER  OF  DEMOCRACY  121 

ing  big  corporations  so  as  to  help  legitimate  business  as  an 
incident  to  thoroughly  and  completely  safeguarding  the 
interests  of  the  people  as  a  whole.  We  are  a  business  people. 
The  tillers  of  the  soil,  the  wage-workers,  the  business  men  — 
these  are  the  three  big  and  vitally  important  divisions  of  our 
population.  The  welfare  of  each  division  is  vitally  necessary 
to  the  welfare  of  the  people  as  a  whole.  The  great  mass  of 
business  is  of  course  done  by  men  whose  business  is  either 
small  or  of  moderate  size.  The  middle-sized  business  men 
form  an  element  of  strength  which  is  of  literally  incalculable 
value  to  the  Nation.  Taken  as  a  class,  they  are  among  our 
best  citizens.  They  have  not  been  seekers  after  enormous 
fortunes;  they  have  been  moderately  and  justly  prosperous, 
by  reason  of  dealing  fairly  with  their  customers,  competitors, 
and  employees.  They  are  satisfied  with  a  legitimate  profit 
that  will  pay  their  expenses  of  living  and  lay  by  something 
for  those  who  come  after,  and  the  additional  amount  nec 
essary  for  the  betterment  and  improvement  of  their  plant. 
The  average  business  man  of  this  type  is,  as  a  rule,  a  leading 
citizen  of  his  community,  foremost  in  everything  that  tells 
for  its  betterment,  a  man  whom  his  neighbors  look  up  to  and 
respect;  he  is  in  no  sense  dangerous  to  his  community,  just 
because  he  is  an  integral  part  of  his  community,  bone  of  its 
bone  and  flesh  of  its  flesh.  His  life  fibers  are  intertwined 
with  the  life  fibers  of  his  fellow-citizens.  Yet  nowadays 
many  men  of  this  kind,  when  they  come  to  make  necessary 
trade  agreements  with  one  another,  find  themselves  in  dan 
ger  of  becoming  unwitting  transgressors  of  the  law,  and  are 
at  a  loss  to  know  what  the  law  forbids  and  what  it  permits. 
This  is  all  wrong.  There  should  be  a  fixed  governmental 
policy,  a  policy  which  shall  clearly  define  and  punish  wrong 
doing,  and  shall  give  in  advance  full  information  to  any  man 
as  to  just  what  he  can  and  just  what  he  cannot  legally  and 
properly  do.  It  is  absurd  and  wicked  to  treat  the  deliberate 


122  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

lawbreaker  as  on  an  exact  par  with  the  man  eager  to  obey  the 
law,  whose  only  desire  is  to  find  out  from  some  competent 
governmental  authority  what  the  law  is  and  then  live  up  to 
it.  It  is  absurd  to  endeavor  to  regulate  business  in  the  in 
terest  of  the  public  by  means  of  longdrawn  lawsuits  without 
any  accompaniment  of  administrative  control  and  regula 
tion,  and  without  any  attempt  to  discriminate  between  the 
honest  man  who  has  succeeded  in  business  because  of  ren 
dering  a  service  to  the  public  and  the  dishonest  man  who 
has  succeeded  in  business  by  cheating  the  public. 

So  much  for  the  small  business  man  and  the  middle-sized 
business  man.  Now  for  big  business.  It  is  imperative  to  ex 
ercise  over  big  business  a  control  and  supervision  which  is 
unnecessary  as  regards  small  business.  All  business  must 
be  conducted  under  the  law,  and  all  business  men,  big  or 
little,  must  act  justly.  But  a  wicked  big  interest  is  neces 
sarily  more  dangerous  to  the  community  than  a  wicked 
little  interest.  "Big  business"  in  the  past  has  been  respon 
sible  for  much  of  the  special  privilege  which  must  be  un 
sparingly  cut  out  of  our  National  life.  I  do  not  believe  in 
making  mere  size  of  and  by  itself  criminal.  The  mere  fact  of 
size,  however,  does  unquestionably  carry  the  potentiality 
of  such  grave  wrong-doing  that  there  should  be  by  law  pro 
vision  made  for  the  strict  supervision  and  regulation  of  these 
great  industrial  concerns  doing  an  inter-State  business,  much 
as  we  now  regulate  the  transportation  agencies  which  are 
engaged  in  inter-State  business.  The  anti-trust  law  does 
good  in  so  far  as  it  can  be  invoked  against  combinations 
which  really  are  monopolies  or  which  restrict  production  or 
which  artificially  raise  prices.  But  in  so  far  as  its  workings 
are  uncertain,  or  as  it  threatens  corporations  which  have 
not  been  guilty  of  anti-social  conduct,  it  does  harm.  More 
over,  it  cannot  by  itself  accomplish  more  than  a  trifling  part 
of  the  governmental  regulation  of  big  business  which  is 


A  CHARTER  OF  DEMOCRACY  123 

needed.  The  Nation  and  the  States  must  cooperate  in  this 
matter.  Among  the  States  that  have  entered  this  field  Wis 
consin  has  taken  a  leading  place.  Following  Senator  La 
Follette,  a  number  of  practical  workers  and  thinkers  in  Wis 
consin  have  turned  that  State  into  an  experimental  labora 
tory  of  wise  governmental  action  in  aid  of  social  and  indus 
trial  justice.  They  have  initiated  the  kind  of  progressive 
government  which  means  not  merely  the  preservation  of 
true  democracy,  but  the  extension  of  the  principle  of  true 
democracy  into  industrialism  as  well  as  into  politics.  One 
prime  reason  why  the  State  has  been  so  successful  in  this 
policy  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  has  done  justice  to  corporations 
precisely  as  it  has  exacted  justice  from  them.  Its  Public 
Utilities  Commission  in  a  recent  report  answered  certain 
critics  as  follows :  — 

To  be  generous  to  the  people  of  the  State  at  the  expense  of  jus 
tice  to  the  carriers  would  be  a  species  of  official  brigandage  that 
ought  to  hold  the  perpetrators  up  to  the  execration  of  all  honest 
men.  Indeed,  we  have  no  idea  that  the  people  of  Wisconsin  have 
the  remotest  desire  to  deprive  the  railroads  of  the  State  of  aught 
that,  in  equality  and  good  conscience,  belongs  to  them,  and  if  any 
of  them  have,  their  wishes  cannot  be  gratified  by  this  Commission. 

This  is  precisely  the  attitude  we  should  take  towards  big 
business.  It  is  the  practical  application  of  the  principle  of 
the  square  deal.  Not  only  as  a  matter  of  justice,  but  in  our 
own  interest,  we  should  scrupulously  respect  the  rights  of 
honest  and  decent  business  and  should  encourage  it  where 
its  activities  make,  as  they  often  do  make,  for  the  common 
good.  It  is  for  the  advantage  of  all  of  us  when  business  pros 
pers.  It  is  for  the  advantage  of  all  of  us  to  have  the  United 
States  become  the  leading  nation  in  international  trade,  and 
we  should  not  deprive  this  Nation,  we  should  not  deprive 
this  people,  of  the  instruments  best  adapted  to  secure  such 
international  commercial  supremacy.  In  other  words,  our 


124  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

demand  is  that  big  business  give  the  people  a  square  deal 
and  that  the  people  give  a  square  deal  to  any  man  engaged 
in  big  business  who  honestly  endeavors  to  do  what  is  right 
and  proper. 

On  the  other  hand,  any  corporation,  big  or  little,  which 
has  gained  its  position  by  unfair  methods  and  by  interfer 
ence  with  the  rights  of  others,  which  has  raised  prices  or 
limited  output  in  improper  fashion  and  been  guilty  of  de 
moralizing  and  corrupt  practices,  should  not  only  be  broken 
up,  but  it  should  be  made  the  business  of  some  competent 
governmental  body  by  constant  supervision  to  see  that  it 
does  not  come  together  again,  save  under  such  strict  con 
trol  as  to  insure  the  community  against  all  danger  of  a  repe 
tition  of  the  bad  conduct.  The  chief  trouble  with  big  busi 
ness  has  arisen  from  the  fact  that  big  business  has  so  often 
refused  to  abide  by  the  principle  of  the  square  deal;  the  op 
position  which  I  personally  have  encountered  from  big  busi 
ness  has  in  every  case  arisen  not  because  I  did  not  give  a 
square  deal  but  because  I  did. 

All  business  into  which  the  element  of  monopoly  in  any 
way  or  degree  enters,  and  where  it  proves  in  practice  im 
possible  totally  to  eliminate  this  element  of  monopoly, 
should  be  carefully  supervised,  regulated,  and  controlled  by 
governmental  authority;  and  such  control  should  be  exer 
cised  by  administrative,  rather  than  by  judicial,  officers. 
No  effort  should  be  made  to  destroy  a  big  corporation 
merely  because  it  is  big,  merely  because  it  has  shown  itself 
a  peculiarly  efficient  business  instrument.  But  we  should 
not  fear,  if  necessary,  to  bring  the  regulation  of  big  corpora 
tions  to  the  point  of  controlling  conditions  so  that  the  wage- 
worker  shall  have  a  wage  more  than  sufficient  to  cover  the 
bare  cost  of  living,  and  hours  of  labor  not  so  excessive  as  to 
wreck  his  strength  by  the  strain  of  unending  toil  and  leave 
him  unfit  to  do  his  duty  as  a  good  citizen  in  the  community. 


A  CHARTER  OF  DEMOCRACY  125 

Where  regulation  by  competition  (which  is,  of  course,  prefer 
able)  proves  insufficient,  we  should  not  shrink  from  bringing 
governmental  regulation  to  the  point  of  control  of  monopoly 
prices  if  it  should  ever  become  necessary  to  do  so,  just  as  in 
exceptional  cases  railway  rates  are  now  regulated. 

In  emphasizing  the  part  of  the  administrative  department 
in  regulating  combinations  and  checking  absolute  monopoly, 
I  do  not,  of  course,  overlook  the  obvious  fact  that  the  legis 
lature  and  the  judiciary  must  do  their  part.  The  legislature 
should  make  it  more  clear  exactly  what  methods  are  illegal, 
and  then  the  judiciary  will  be  in  a  better  position  to  punish 
adequately  and  relentlessly  those  who  insist  on  defying  the 
clear  legislative  decrees.  I  do  not  believe  any  absolute  pri 
vate  monopoly  is  justified,  but  if  our  great  combinations  are 
properly  supervised,  so  that  immoral  practices  are  prevented, 
absolute  monopoly  will  not  come  to  pass,  as  the  laws  of  com 
petition  and  efficiency  are  against  it. 

The  important  thing  is  this:  that,  under  such  govern 
ment  recognition  as  we  may  give  to  that  which  is  beneficent 
and  wholesome  in  large  business  organizations,  we  shall  be 
most  vigilant  never  to  allow  them  to  crystallize  into  a  con 
dition  which  shall  make  private  initiative  difficult.  It  is  of 
the  utmost  importance  that  in  the  future  we  shall  keep  the 
broad  path  of  opportunity  just  as  open  and  easy  for  our 
children  as  it  was  for  our  fathers  during  the  period  which 
has  been  the  glory  of  America's  industrial  history  —  that  it 
shall  be  not  only  possible  but  easy  for  an  ambitious  man, 
whose  character  has  so  impressed  itself  upon  his  neighbors 
that  they  are  willing  to  give  him  capital  and  credit,  to  start 
in  business  for  himself,  and,  if  his  superior  efficiency  deserves 
it,  to  triumph  over  the  biggest  organization  that  may  hap 
pen  to  exist  in  his  particular  field.  Whatever  practices  upon 
the  part  of  large  combinations  may  threaten  to  discourage 
such  a  man,  or  deny  to  him  that  which  in  the  judgment  of 


126  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

the  community  is  a  square  deal,  should  be  specifically  de 
fined  by  the  statutes  as  crimes.  And  in  every  case  the  indi 
vidual  corporation  officer  responsible  for  such  unfair  dealing 
should  be  punished. 

We  grudge  no  man  a  fortune  which  represents  his  own 
power  and  sagacity  exercised  with  entire  regard  to  the  wel 
fare  of  his  fellows.  We  have  only  praise  for  the  business  man 
whose  business  success  comes  as  an  incident  to  doing  good 
work  for  his  fellows.  But  we  should  so  shape  conditions  that 
a  fortune  shall  be  obtained  only  in  honorable  fashion,  in  such 
fashion  that  its  gaining  represents  benefit  to  the  community. 

In  a  word,  then,  our  fundamental  purpose  must  be  to 
secure  genuine  equality  of  opportunity.  No  man  should 
receive  a  dollar  unless  that  dollar  has  been  fairly  earned. 
Every  dollar  received  should  represent  a  dollar's  worth  of 
service  rendered.  No  watering  of  stocks  should  be  permitted ; 
and  it  can  be  prevented  only  by  close  governmental  super 
vision  of  all  stock  issues,  so  as  to  prevent  overcapitalization. 
\  We  stand  for  the  rights  of  property,  but  we  stand  even 
more  for  the  rights  of  man.!  We  will  protect  the  rights  of  the 
wealthy  man,  but  we  maintain  that  he  holds  his  wealth  sub 
ject  to  the  general  right  of  the  community  to  regulate  its 
business  use  as  the  public  welfare  requires. 

We  also  maintain  that  the  Nation  and  the  several  States 
have  the  right  to  regulate  the  terms  and  conditions  of  labor, 
which  is  the  chief  element  of  wealth,  directly  in  the  interest 
of  the  common  good.  It  is  our  prime  duty  to  shape  the  in 
dustrial  and  social  forces  so  that  they  may  tell  for  the  ma 
terial  and  moral  upbuilding  of  the  farmer  and  the  wage- 
worker,  just  as  they  should  do  in  the  case  of  the  business 
man.  You,  framers  of  this  Constitution,  be  careful  so  to 
frame  it  that  under  it  the  people  shall  leave  themselves  free 
to  do  whatever  is  necessary  in  order  to  help  the  farmers  of 
the  State  to  get  for  themselves  and  their  wives  and  children 


A  CHARTER  OF  DEMOCRACY  127 

not  only  the  benefits  of  better  farming  but  also  those  of 
better  business  methods  and  better  conditions  of  life  on  the 
farm. 

Moreover,  shape  your  constitutional  action  so  that  the  peo 
ple  will  be  able  through  their  legislative  bodies,  or,  failing 
that,  by  direct  popular  vote,  to  provide  workmen's  compen 
sation  acts,  to  regulate  the  hours  of  labor  for  children  and 
for  women,  to  provide  for  their  safety  while  at  work,  and  to 
prevent  overwork  or  work  under  unhygienic  or  unsafe  con 
ditions.  See  to  it  that  no  restrictions  are  placed  upon  legis 
lative  powers  that  will  prevent  the  enactment  of  laws  under 
which  your  people  can  promote  the  general  welfare,  the  com 
mon  good.  Thus  only  will  the  "general  welfare"  clause  of 
our  Constitution  become  a  vital  force  for  progress,  instead 
of  remaining  a  mere  phrase.  This  also  applies  to  the  police 
powers  of  the  Government.  Make  it  perfectly  clear  that  on 
every  point  of  this  kind  it  is  your  intention  that  the  people 
shall  decide  for  themselves  how  far  the  laws  to  achieve  their 
purposes  shall  go,  and  that  their  decision  shall  be  binding 
upon  every  citizen  in  the  State,  official  or  non-official,  un 
less,  of  course,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Nation  in  any  given 
case  decides  otherwise. 

So  much  for  the  ends  of  government;  and  I  have,  of  course, 
merely  sketched  in  outline  what  the  ends  should  be.  Now 
for  the  machinery  by  which  these  ends  are  to  be  achieved; 
and  here  again  remember  I  only  sketch  in  outline  and  do  not 
for  a  moment  pretend  to  work  out  in  detail  the  methods  of 
achieving  your  purposes.  Let  me  at  the  outset  urge  upon 
you  to  remember  that,  while  machinery  is  important,  it  is 
easy  to  overestimate  its  importance;  and,  moreover,  that 
each  community  has  the  absolute  right  to  determine  for  it 
self  what  that  machinery  shall  be,  subject  only  to  the  fun 
damental  law  of  the  Nation  as  expressed  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  Massachusetts  has  the  right  to  have 


128  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

appointive  judges  who  serve  during  good  behavior,  subject 
to  removal,  not  by  impeachment,  but  by  simple  majority 
vote  of  the  two  houses  of  the  Legislature  whenever  the  rep 
resentatives  of  the  people  feel  that  the  needs  of  the  people 
require  such  removal.  New  York  has  the  right  to  have  a  long- 
term  elective  judiciary.  Ohio  has  the  right  to  have  a  short- 
term  elective  judiciary  without  the  recall.  California,  Ore 
gon,  and  Arizona  have  each  and  every  one  of  them  the 
right  to  have  a  short-term  elective  judiciary  with  the  recall. 
Personally,  of  the  four  systems  I  prefer  the  Massachusetts 
one,  if  addition  be  made  to  it  as  I  hereinafter  indicate;  but 
that  is  merely  my  preference;  and  neither  I  nor  any  one  else 
within  or  without  public  life  has  the  right  to  impose  his 
preference  upon  any  community  when  the  question  is  as  to 
how  that  community  chooses  to  arrange  for  its  executive, 
legislative,  or  judicial  functions.  But  as  you  have  invited 
me  to  address  you  here,  I  will  give  you  my  views  as  to  the 
kind  of  governmental  machinery  which  at  this  time  and 
under  existing  social  and  industrial  conditions  it  seems  to  me 
that,  as  a  people,  we  need. 

In  the  first  place,  I  believe  in  the  short  ballot.  You  can 
not  get  good  service  from  the  public  servant  if  you  cannot 
see  him,  and  there  is  no  more  effective  way  of  hiding  him 
than  by  mixing  him  up  with  a  multitude  of  others  so  that 
they  are  none  of  them  important  enough  to  catch  the  eye  of 
the  average,  workaday  citizen.  The  crook  in  public  life  is 
not  ordinarily  the  man  whom  the  people  themselves  elect 
directly  to  a  highly  important  and  responsible  position.  The 
type  of  boss  who  has  made  the  name  of  politician  odious 
rarely  himself  runs  for  high  elective  office;  and  if  he  does  and 
is  elected,  the  people  have  only  themselves  to  blame.  The 
professional  politician  and  the  professional  lobbyist  thrive 
most  rankly  under  a  system  which  provides  a  multitude  of 
elective  officers,  of  such  divided  responsibility  and  of  such 


A  CHARTER  OF  DEMOCRACY  129 

obscurity  that  the  public  knows,  and  can  know,  but  little  as 
to  their  duties  and  the  way  they  perform  them.  The  people 
have  nothing  whatever  to  fear  from  giving  any  public  serv 
ant  power  so  long  as  they  retain  their  own  power  to  hold 
him  accountable  for  his  use  of  the  power  they  have  delegated 
to  him.  You  will  get  best  service  where  you  elect  only  a  few 
men,  and  where  each  man  has  his  definite  duties  and  re 
sponsibilities,  and  is  obliged  to  work  in  the  open,  so  that  the 
people  know  who  he  is  and  what  he  is  doing,  and  have  the 
information  that  will  enable  them  to  hold  him  to  account 
for  his  stewardship. 

I  believe  in  providing  for  direct  nominations  by  the  people, 
including  therein  direct  preferential  primaries  for  the  election 
of  delegates  to  the  National  nominating  conventions.  Not 
as  a  matter  of  theory,  but  as  a  matter  of  plain  and  proved 
experience,  we  find  that  the  convention  system,  while  it  often 
records  the  popular  will,  is  also  often  used  by  adroit  poli 
ticians  as  a  method  of  thwarting  the  popular  will.  In  other 
words,  the  existing  machinery  for  nominations  is  cumbrous, 
and  is  not  designed  to  secure  the  real  expression  of  the  pop 
ular  desire.  Now  as  good  citizens  we  are  all  of  us  willing  to 
acquiesce  cheerfully  in  a  nomination  secured  by  the  expres 
sion  of  a  majority  of  the  people,  but  we  do  not  like  to  ac 
quiesce  in  a  nomination  secured  by  adroit  political  manage 
ment  in  defeating  the  wish  of  the  majority  of  the  people. 

I  believe  in  the  election  of  United  States  Senators  by  direct 
vote.  Just  as  actual  experience  convinced  our  people  that 
Presidents  should  be  elected  (as  they  now  are  in  practice, 
although  not  in  theory)  by  direct  vote  of  the  people  instead 
of  by  indirect  vote  through  an  untrammeled  electoral  college, 
so  actual  experience  has  convinced  us  that  Senators  should 
be  elected  by  direct  vote  of  the  people  instead  of  indirectly 
through  the  various  Legislatures. 

I  believe  in  the  initiative  and  the  referendum,  which 


130  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

should  be  used  not  to  destroy  representative  government, 
but  to  correct  it  whenever  it  becomes  misrepresentative. 
Here  again  I  am  concerned  not  with  theories  but  with  actual 
facts.  If  in  any  State  the  people  are  themselves  satisfied 
with  their  present  representative  system,  then  it  is  of  course 
their  right  to  keep  that  system  unchanged;  and  it  is  nobody's 
business  but  theirs.  But  in  actual  practice  it  has  been  found 
in  very  many  States  that  legislative  bodies  have  not  been 
responsive  to  the  popular  will.  Therefore  I  believe  that  the 
State  should  provide  for  the  possibility  of  direct  popular 
action  in  order  to  make  good  such  legislative  failure.  The 
power  to  Invoke  such  direct  action,  both  by  initiative  and 
by  referendum,  should  be  provided  in  such  fashion  as  to  pre 
vent  its  being  wantonly  or  too  frequently  used.  I  do  not 
believe  that  it  should  be  made  the  easy  or  ordinary  way  of 
taking  action.  In  the  great  majority  of  cases  it  is  far  better 
that  action  on  legislative  matters  should  be  taken  by  those 
specially  delegated  to  perform  the  task;  in  other  words,  that 
the  work  should  be  done  by  the  experts  chosen  to  perform  it. 
But  where  the  men  thus  delegated  fail  to  perform  their  duty, 
then  it  should  be  in  the  power  of  the  people  themselves  to 
perform  the  duty.  In  a  recent  speech  Governor  McGovern, 
of  Wisconsin,  has  described  the  plan  which  has  been  there 
adopted.  Under  this  plan  the  effort  to  obtain  the  law  is 
first  to  be  made  through  the  Legislature,  the  bill  being 
pushed  as  far  as  it  will  go;  so  that  the  details  of  the  proposed 
measure  may  be  threshed  over  in  actual  legislative  debate. 
This  gives  opportunity  to  perfect  it  in  form  and  invites  pub 
lic  scrutiny.  Then,  if  the  Legislature  fails  to  enact  it,  it  can 
be  enacted  by  the  people  on  their  own  initiative,  taken  at 
least  four  months  before  election.  Moreover,  where  possible, 
the  question  actually  to  be  voted  on  by  the  people  should  be 
made  as  simple  as  possible.  In  short,  I  believe  that  the  ini 
tiative  and  referendum  should  be  used,  not  as  substitutes  for 


A  CHARTER  OF  DEMOCRACY  131 

representative  government,  but  as  methods  of  making  such 
government  really  representative.  Action  by  the  initiative  or 
referendum  ought  not  to  be  the  normal  way  of  legislation; 
but  the  power  to  take  it  should  be  provided  in  the  Constitu 
tion,  so  that  if  the  representatives  fail  truly  to  represent  the 
people  on  some  matter  of  sufficient  importance  to  rouse  pop 
ular  interest,  then  the  people  shall  have  in  their  hands  the 
facilities  to  make  good  the  failure.  And  I  urge  you  not  to  try 
to  put  constitutional  fetters  on  the  Legislature,  as  so  many 
constitution-makers  have  recently  done.  Such  action  on 
your  part  would  invite  the  courts  to  render  nugatory  every 
legislative  act  to  better  social  conditions.  Give  the  Legisla 
ture  an  entirely  free  hand;  and  then  provide  by  the  initia 
tive  and  referendum  that  the  people  shall  have  power  to 
reverse  or  supplement  the  work  of  the  Legislature  should 
it  ever  become  necessary. 

As  to  the  recall,  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  great 
necessity  for  it  as  regards  short-term  elective  officers.  On 
abstract  grounds  I  was  originally  inclined  to  be  hostile  to  it. 
I  know  of  one  case  where  it  was  actually  used  with  mischiev 
ous  results.  On  the  other  hand,  in  three  cases  in  municipali 
ties  on  the  Pacific  Coast  which  have  come  to  my  knowledge 
it  was  used  with  excellent  results.  I  believe  it  should  be 
generally  provided,  but  with  such  restrictions  as  will  make 
it  available  only  when  there  is  a  widespread  and  genuine 
public  feeling  among  a  majority  of  the  voters. 

There  remains  the  question  of  the  recall  of  judges.  .  .  . 

Now,  gentlemen,  in  closing,  and  in  thanking  you  for  your 
courtesy,  let  me  add  one  word.  Keep  clearly  in  view  what 
are  the  fundamental  ends  of  government.  Remember  that ' 
methods  are  merely  the  machinery  by  which  these  ends  are 
to  be  achieved.  I  hope  that  not  only  you  and  I  but  all  our 
people  may  ever  remember  that  while  good  laws  are  neces 
sary,  while  it  is  necessary  to  have  the  right  kind  of  govern- 


132  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

mental  machinery,  yet  that  the  all-important  matter  is  to 
have  the  right  kind  of  man  behind  the  law.  A  State  cannot 
rise  without  proper  laws,  but  the  best  laws  that  the  wit  of 
man  can  devise  will  amount  to  nothing  if  the  State  does  not 
contain  the  right  kind  of  man,  the  right  kind  of  woman. 
A  good  Constitution,  and  good  laws  under  the  Constitution, 
and  fearless  and  upright  officials  to  administer  the  laws  — 
all  these  are  necessary;  but  the  prime  requisite  in  our  Na 
tional  life  is,  and  must  always  be,  the  possession  by  the  aver 
age  citizen  of  the  right  kind  of  character.  Our  aim  must  be 
the  moralization  of  the  individual,  of  the  government,  of  the 
people  as  a  whole.  We  desire  the  moralization  not  only  of 
political  conditions  but  of  industrial  conditions,  so  that  every 
force  in  the  community,  individual  and  collective,  may  be 
directed  towards  securing  for  the  average  man,  and  average 
woman,  a  higher  and  better  and  fuller  life,  in  the  things  of 
the  body  no  less  than  those  of  the  mind  and  the  soul. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  ' 
RALPH  WALDO  EMERSON 

MR.  PRESIDENT  AND  GENTLEMEN,  —  I  greet  you  on  the 
recommencement  of  our  literary  year.  Our  anniversary  is 
one  of  hope,  and,  perhaps,  not  enough  of  labor.  We  do  not 
meet  for  games  of  strength  or  skill,  for  the  recitation  of  his 
tories,  tragedies,  and  odes,  like  the  ancient  Greeks;  for  par 
liaments  of  love  and  poesy,  like  the  Troubadours;  nor  for 
the  advancement  of  science,  like  OUT  contemporaries  in  the 
British  and  European  capitals.  Thus  far,  our  holiday  has 
been  simply  a  friendly  sign  of  the  survival  of  the  love  of 
letters  amongst  a  people  too  busy  to  give  to  letters  any  more. 
As  such  it  is  precious  as  the  sign  of  an  indestructible  instinct. 
Perhaps  the  time  is  already  come  when  it  ought  to  be,  and 
will  be,  something  else;  when  the  sluggard  intellect  of  this 
continent  will  look  from  under  its  iron  lids  and  fill  the  post 
poned  expectation  of  the  world  with  something  better  than 
the  exertions  of  mechanical  skill.  Our  day  of  dependence, 
our  long  apprenticeship  to  the  learning  of  other  lands,  draws 
to  a  close.  The  millions  that  around  us  are  rushing  into  life, 
cannot  always  be  fed  on  the  sere  remains  of  foreign  harvests. 
Events,  actions  arise,  that  must  be  sung,  that  will  sing 
themselves.  Who  can  doubt  that  poetry  will  revive  and 
lead  in  a  new  age,  as  the  star  in  the  constellation  Harp, 
which  now  flames  in  our  zenith,  astronomers  announce, 
shall  one  day  be  the  pole-star  for  a  thousand  years? 

1  Our  "Intellectual  Declaration  of  Independence,"  as  Oliver  Wendell 
Holmes  called  it,  was  delivered  before  the  Phi  Beta  Kappa  Society,  in 
Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  August  31,  1837. 


134  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

In  this  hope  I  accept  the  topic  which  not  only  usage  but 
the  nature  of  our  association  seem  to  prescribe  to  this  day, 
—  the  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR.  Year  by  year  we  come  up  hither 
to  read  one  more  chapter  of  his  biography./T<et  us  inquire 
what  light  new  days  and  events  have  thrown  on  his  char 
acter  and  his  hopes. 

It  is  one  of  those  fables  which  out  of  an  unknown  an 
tiquity  convey  an  unlooked-for  wisdom,  that  the  gods,  in  the 
beginning,  divided  Man  into  men,  that  he  might  be  more 
helpful  to  himself;  just  as  the  hand  was  divided  into  fingers, 
the  better  to  answer  its  end. 

The  old  fable  covers  a  doctrine  ever  new  and  sublime; 
that  there  is  One  Man,  —  present  to  all  particular  men  only 
partially,  or  through  one  faculty;  and  that  you  must  take  the 
whole  society  to  find  the  whole  man.  Man  is  not  a  farmer, 
or  a  professor,  or  an  engineer,  but  he  is  all.  Man  is  priest, 
and  scholar,  and  statesman,  and  producer,  and  soldier.  In 
the  divided  or  social  state  these  functions  are  parcelled  out 
to  individuals,  each  of  whom  aims  to  do  his  stint  of  the  joint 
work,  whilst  each  other  performs  his.  The  fable  implies  that 
the  individual,  to  possess  himself,  must  sometimes  return 
from  his  own  labor  to  embrace  all  the  other  laborers.  But, 
unfortunately,  this  original  unit,  this  fountain  of  power, 
has  been  so  distributed  to  multitudes,  has  been  so  minutely 
subdivided  and  peddled  out,  that  it  is  spilled  into  drops,  and 
cannot  be  gathered.  The  state  of  society  is  one  in  which  the 
members  have  suffered  amputation  from  the  trunk,  and 
strut  about  so  many  walking  monsters,  —  a  good  finger,  a 
neck,  a  stomach,  an  elbow,  but  never  a  man. 

Man  is  thus  metamorphosed  into  a  thing,  into  many 
things.  The  planter,  who  is  Man  sent  out  into  the  field  to 
gather  food,  is  seldom  cheered  by  any  idea  of  the  true  dig 
nity  of  his  ministry.  He  sees  his  bushel  and  his  cart,  and 
nothing  beyond,  and  sinks  into  the  farmer,  instead  of  Man 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  135 

on  the  farm.  The  tradesman  scarcely  ever  gives  an  ideal 
worth  to  his  work,  but  is  ridden  by  the  routine  of  his  craft, 
and  the  soul  is  subject  to  dollars.  The  priest  becomes  a 
form;  the  attorney  a  statute-book;  the  mechanic  a  machine; 
the  sailor  a  rope  of  the  ship. 

In  this  distribution  of  functions  the  scholar  is  the  dele 
gated  intellect.  In  the  right  state  he  is  Man  Thinking.  In 
the  degenerate  state,  when  the  victim  of  society,  he  tends  to 
become  a  mere  thinker,  or  still  worse,  the  parrot  of  other 
men's  thinking. 

In  this  view  of  him,  as  Man  Thinking,  the  theory  of  his 
office  is  contained.  Him  Nature  solicits  writh  all  her  placid, 
all  her  monitory  pictures;  him  the  past  instructs;  him  the 
future  invites.  Is  not  indeed  every  man  a  student,  and  do 
not  all  things  exist  for  the  student's  behoof?  And,  finally,  is 
not  the  true  scholar  the  only  true  master?  But  the  old  oracle 
said,  "All  things  have  two  handles:  beware  of  the  wrong 
one."  In  life,  too  often,  the  scholar  errs  with  mankind  and 
forfeits  his  privilege.  Let  us  see  him  in  his  school,  and  con 
sider  him  in  reference  to  the  main  influences  he  receives. 

/ 

I.  The  first  in  time  and  the  first  in  importance  of  the  in 
fluences  upon  the  mind  is  that  of  nature.  Every  day,  the 
sun;  and,  after  sunset,  Night  and  her  stars.  Ever  the  winds 
blow;  ever  the  grass  grows.  Every  day,  men  and  women, 
conversing,  beholding  and  beholden.  The  scholar  is  he  of 
all  men  whom  this  spectacle  most  engages.  He  must  settle 
its  value  in  his  mind.  What  is  nature  to  him?  There  is 
never  a  beginning,  there  is  never  an  end,  to  the  inexpli 
cable  continuity  of  this  web  of  God,  but  always  circular 
power  returning  into  itself.  Therein  it  resembles  his  own 
spirit,  whose  beginning,  whose  ending,  he  never  can  find,  —  so 
entire,  so  boundless.  Far  too  as  her  splendors  shine,  system 
on  system  shooting  like  rays,  upward,  downward,  without 


136  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

centre,  without  circumference,  —  in  the  mass  and  in  the 
particle,  Nature  hastens  to  render  account  of  herself  to  the 
mind.  Classification  begins.  To  the  young  mind  everything 
is  individual,  stands  by  itself.  By  and  by,  it  finds  how  to 
join  two  things  and  see  in  them  one  nature ;  then  three,  then 
three  thousand;  and  so,  tyrannized  over  by  its  own  unifying 
instinct,  it  goes  on  tying  things  together,  diminishing  anom 
alies,  discovering  roots  running  under  ground  whereby  con 
trary  and  remote  things  cohere  and  flower  out  from  one 
stem.  It  presently  learns  that  since  the  dawn  of  history  there 
has  been  a  constant  accumulation  and  classifying  of  facts. 
But  what  is  classification  but  the  perceiving  that  these 
objects  are  not  chaotic,  and  are  not  foreign,  but  have  a  law 
which  is  also  a  law  of  the  human  mind?  The  astronomer 
discovers  that  geometry,  a  pure  abstraction  of  the  human 
mind,  is  the  measure  of  planetary  motion.  The  chemist  finds 
proportions  and  intelligible  method  throughout  matter; 
and  science  is  nothing  but  the  finding  of  analogy,  identity, 
in  the  most  remote  parts.  The  ambitious  soul  sits  down  be 
fore  each  refractory  fact ;  one  after  another  reduces  all  strange 
constitutions,  all  new  powers,  to  their  class  and  their  law, 
and  goes  on  forever  to  animate  the  last  fibre  of  organization, 
the  outskirts  of  nature,  by  insight. 

Thus  to  him,  to  this  school-boy  under  the  bending  dome 
of  day,  is  suggested  that  he  and  it  proceed  from  one  root; 
one  is  leaf  and  one  is  flower;  relation,  sympathy,  stirring  in 
every  vein.  And  what  is  that  root?  Is  not  that  the  soul  of 
his  soul?  A  thought  too  bold;  a  dream  too  wild.  Yet  when 
this  spiritual  light  shall  have  revealed  the  law  of  more 
earthly  natures,  —  when  he  has  learned  to  worship  the  soul, 
and  to  see  that  the  natural  philosophy  that  now  is,  is  only 
the  first  gropings  of  its  gigantic  hand,  he  shall  look  forward 
to  an  ever  expanding  knowledge  as  to  a  becoming  creator. 
He  shall  see  that  nature  is  the  opposite  of  the  soul,  answer- 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  137 

ing  to  it  part  for  part.  One  is  seal  and  one  is  print.  Its 
beauty  is  the  beauty  of  his  own  mind.  Its  laws  are  the  laws 
of  his  own  mind.  Nature  then  becomes  to  him  the  measure 
of  his  attainments.  So  much  of  nature  as  he  is  ignorant  of, 
so  much  of  his  own  mind  does  he  not  yet  possess.  And,  in 
fine,  the  ancient  precept,  "Know  thyself,"  and  the  modern 
precept,  "Study  nature,"  become  at  last  one  maxim. 

II.  The  next  great  influence  into  the  spirit  of  the  scholar 
is  the  mind  of  the  Past,  —  in  whatever  form,  whether  of 
literature,  of  art,  of  institutions,  that  mind  is  inscribed. 
Books  are  the  best  type  of  the  influence  of  the  past,  and  per 
haps  we  shall  get  at  the  truth,  —  learn  the  amount  of  this 
influence  more  conveniently,  —  by  considering  their  value 
alone. 

The  theory  of  books  is  noble.  The  scholar  of  the  first  age 
received  into  him  the  world  around;  brooded  thereon;  gave 
it  the  new  arrangement  of  his  own  mind,  and  uttered  it  again. 
It  came  into  him  life;  it  went  out  from  him  truth.  It  came 
to  him  short-lived  actions;  it  went  out  from  him  immortal 
thoughts.  It  came  to  him  business;  it  went  from  him  poetry. 
It  was  dead  fact ;  now,  it  is  quick  thought.  It  can  stand,  and 
it  can  go.  It  now  endures,  it  now  flies,  it  now  inspires.  Pre 
cisely  in  proportion  to  the  depth  of  mind  from  which  it  is 
sued,  so  high  does  it  soar,  so  long  does  it  sing. 

Or,  I  might  say,  it  depends  on  how  far  the  process  had 
gone,  of  transmuting  life  into  truth.  In  proportion  to  the 
completeness  of  the  distillation,  so  will  the  purity  and  im- 
perishableness  of  the  product  be.  But  none  is  quite  perfect. 
As  no  air-pump  can  by  any  means  make  a  perfect  vacuum, 
so  neither  can  any  artist  entirely  exclude  the  conventional, 
the  local,  the  perishable  from  his  book,  or  write  a  book  of 
pure  thought,  that  shall  be  as  efficient,  in  all  respects,  to 
a  remote  posterity,  as  to  contemporaries,  or  rather  to  the 
second  age.  Each  age,  it  is  found,  must  write  its  own  books; 


138  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

or  rather,  each  generation  for  the  next  succeeding.  The 
books  of  an  older  period  will  not  fit  this. 

Yet  hence  arises  a  grave  mischief.  The  sacredness  which 
attaches  to  the  act  of  creation,  the  act  of  thought,  is  trans 
ferred  to  the  record.  The  poet  chanting  was  felt  to  be 
a  divine  man:  henceforth  the  chant  is  divine  also.  The 
writer  was  a  just  and  wise  spirit:  henceforward  it  is  settled 
the  book  is  perfect;  as  love  of  the  hero  corrupts  into  wor 
ship  of  his  statue.  Instantly  the  book  becomes  noxious:  the 
guide  is  a  tyrant.  The  sluggish  and  perverted  mind  of  the 
multitude,  slow  to  open  to  the  incursions  of  Reason,  having 
once  so  opened,  having  once  received  this  book,  stands  upon 
it,  and  makes  an  outcry  if  it  is  disparaged.  Colleges  are 
built  on  it.  Books  are  written  on  it  by  thinkers,  not  by  Man 
Thinking;  by  men  of  talent,  that  is,  who  start  wrong,  who 
set  out  from  accepted  dogmas,  not  from  their  own  sight  of 
principles.  Meek  young  men  grow  up  in  libraries,  believing 
it  their  duty  to  accept  the  views  which  Cicero,  which  Locke, 
which  Bacon,  have  given;  forgetful  that  Cicero,  Locke,  and 
Bacon  were  only  young  men  in  libraries  when  they  wrote 
these  books. 

Hence,  instead  of  Man  Thinking,  we  have  the  bookworm. 
Hence  the  book-learned  class,  who  value  books,  as  such;  not 
as  related  to  nature  and  the  human  constitution,  but  as 
making  a  sort  of  Third  Estate  with  the  world  and  the  soul. 
Hence  the  restorers  of  readings,  the  emendators,  the  bib 
liomaniacs  of  all  degrees. 

Books  are  the  best  of  things,  well  used;  abused,  among  the 
worst.  What  is  the  right  use?  What  is  the  one  end  which  all 
means  go  to  effect?  They  are  for  nothing  but  to  inspire.  I 
had  better  never  see  a  book  than  to  be  warped  by  its  attrac 
tion  clean  out  of  my  own  orbit,  and  made  a  satellite  instead 
of  a  system.  The  one  thing  in  the  world,  of  value,  is  the 
active  soul.  This  every  man  is  entitled  to;  this  every  man 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  139 

contains  within  him,  although  in  almost  all  men  obstructed, 
and  as  yet  unborn.  The  soul  active  sees  absolute  truth  and 
utters  truth,  or  creates.  In  this  action  it  is  genius;  not  the 
privilege  of  here  and  there  a  favorite,  but  the  sound  estate 
of  every  man.  In  its  essence  it  is  progressive.  The  book,  the 
college,  the  school  of  art,  the  institution  of  any  kind,  stop 
with  some  past  utterance  of  genius.  This  is  good,  say  they, 
-  let  us  hold  by  this.  They  pin  me  down.  They  look  back 
ward  and  not  forward.  But  genius  looks  forward :  the  e^es  of 
man  are  set  in  his  forehead,  not  in  his  hindhead :  man  hopes : 
genius  creates.  Whatever  talents  may  be,  if  the  man  create 
not,  the  pure  efflux  of  the  Deity  is  not  his ;  —  cinders  and 
smoke  there  may  be,  but  not  yet  flame.  There  are  creative 
manners,  there  are  creative  actions,  and  creative  words; 
manners,  actions,  words,  that  is,  indicative  of  no  custom  or 
authority,  but  springing  spontaneous  from  the  mind's  own 
sense  of  good  and  fair. 

On  the  other  part,  instead  of  being  its  own  seer,  let  it 
receive  from  another  mind  its  truth,  though  it  were  in  tor 
rents  of  light,  without  periods  of  solitude,  inquest,  and  self- 
recovery,  and  a  fatal  disservice  is  done.  Genius  is  always 
sufficiently  the  enemy  of  genius  by  over-influence.  The 
literature  of  every  nation  bears  me  witness.  The  English 
dramatic  poets  have  Shakspearized  now  for  two  hundred 
years. 

Undoubtedly  there  is  a  right  way  of  reading,  so  it  be 
sternly  subordinated.  Man  Thinking  must  not  be  subdued 
by  his  instruments.  Books  are  for  the  scholar's  idle  times. 
When  he  can  read  God  directly,  the  hour  is  too  precious  to 
be  wasted  in  other  men's  transcripts  of  their  readings.  But 
when  the  intervals  of  darkness  come,  as  come  they  must,  — 
when  the  sun  is  hid  and  the  stars  withdraw  their  shining, 
—  we  repair  to  the  lamps  which  were  kindled  by  their  ray, 
to  guide  our  steps  to  the  East  again,  where  the  dawn  is.  We 


140  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

hear,  that  we  may  speak.  The  Arabian  proverb  says,  "A 
fig  tree,  looking  on  a  fig  tree,  becometh  fruitful." 

It  is  remarkable,  the  character  of  the  pleasure  we  derive 
from  the  best  books.  They  impress  us  with  the  conviction 
that  one  nature  wrote  and  the  same  reads.  We  read  the 
verses  of  one  of  the  great  English  poets,  of  Chaucer,  of  Mar- 
veil,  of  Dryden,  with  the  most  modern  joy,  —  with  a  pleas 
ure,  I  mean,  which  is  in  great  part  caused  by  the  abstraction 
of  all  time  from  their  verses.  There  is  some  awe  mixed  with 
the  joy  of  our  surprise,  when  this  poet,  who  lived  in  some 
past  world,  two  or  three  hundred  years  ago,  says  that  which 
lies  close  to  my  own  soul,  that  which  I  also  had  well-nigh 
thought  and  said.  But  for  the  evidence  thence  afforded  to 
the  philosophical  doctrine  of  the  identity  of  all  minds,  we 
should  suppose  some  preestablished  harmony,  some  fore 
sight  of  souls  that  were  to  be,  and  some  preparation  of  stores 
for  their  future  wants,  like  the  fact  observed  in  insects,  who 
lay  up  food  before  death  for  the  young  grub  they  shall  never 
see. 

I  would  not  be  hurried  by  any  love  of  system,  by  any 
exaggeration  of  instincts,  to  underrate  the  Book.  We  all 
know,  that  as  the  human  body  can  be  nourished  on  any 
food,  though  it  were  boiled  grass  and  the  broth  of  shoes,  so 
the  human  mind  can  be  fed  by  any  knowledge.  And  great 
and  heroic  men  have  existed  who  had  almost  no  other  in 
formation  than  by  the  printed  page.  I  only  would  say  that 
it  needs  a  strong  head  to  bear  that  diet.  One  must  be  an  in 
ventor  to  read  well.  As  the  proverb  says,  "He  that  would 
bring  home  the  wealth  of  the  Indies,  must  carry  out  the 
wealth  of  the  Indies."  There  is  then  creative  reading  as  well 
as  creative  writing.  When  the  mind  is  braced  by  labor  and 
invention,  the  page  of  whatever  book  we  read  becomes  lumi 
nous  with  manifold  allusion.  Every  sentence  is  doubly  sig 
nificant,  and  the  sense  of  our  author  is  as  broad  as  the  world. 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  141 

We  then  see,  what  is  always  true,  that  as  the  seer's  hour  of 
vision  is  short  and  rare  among  heavy  days  and  months,  so  is 
its  record,  perchance,  the  least  part  of  his  volume.  The  dis 
cerning  will  read,  in  his  Plato  or  Shakspeare,  only  that  least 
part,  —  only  the  authentic  utterances  of  the  oracle ;  —  all 
the  rest  he  rejects,  were  it  never  so  many  times  Plato's  and 
Shakespeare's. 

Of  course  there  is  a  portion  of  reading  quite  indispensable 
to  a  wise  man.  History  and  exact  science  he  must  learn  by 
laborious  reading.  Colleges,  in  like  manner,  have  their  in 
dispensable  office,  —  to  teach  elements.  But  they  can  only 
highly  serve  us  wThen  they  aim  not  to  drill,  but  to  create; 
when  they  gather  from  far  every  ray  of  various  genius  to 
their  hospitable  halls,  and  by  the  concentrated  fires,  set  the 
hearts  of  their  youth  on  flame.  Thought  and  knowledge  are 
natures  in  which  apparatus  and  pretension  avail  nothing. 
Gowns  and  pecuniary  foundations,  though  of  towns  of  gold, 
can  never  countervail  the  least  sentence  or  syllable  of  wit. 
Forget  this,  and  our  American  colleges  will  recede  in  their 
public  importance,  whilst  they  grow  richer  every  year. 

III.  There  goes  in  the  world  a  notion  that  the  scholar 
should  be  a  recluse,  a  valetudinarian,  —  as  unfit  for  any 
handiwork  or  public  labor  as  a  penknife  for  an  axe.  The  so- 
called  "practical  men"  sneer  at  speculative  men,  as  if,  be 
cause  they  speculate  or  see,  they  could  do  nothing.  I  have 
heard  it  said  that  the  clergy,  —  who  are  always  more  uni 
versally  than  any  other  class,  the  scholars  of  their  day,  — 
are  addressed  as  women;  that  the  rough,  spontaneous  con 
versation  of  men  they  do  not  hear,  but  only  a  mincing  and 
diluted  speech.  They  are  often  virtually  disfranchised;  and 
indeed  there  are  advocates  for  their  celibacy.  As  far  as  this 
is  true  of  the  studious  classes,  it  is  not  just  and  wise.  Action 
is  with  the  scholar  subordinate,  but  it  is  essential.  Without 


142  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

it  he  is  not  yet  man.  Without  it  thought  can  never  ripen 
into  truth.  Whilst  the  world  hangs  before  the  eye  as  a  cloud 
of  beauty,  we  cannot  even  see  its  beauty.  Inaction  is  cow 
ardice,  but  there  can  be  no  scholar  without  the  heroic  mind. 
The  preamble  of  thought,  the  transition  through  which 
it  passes  from  the  unconscious  to  the  conscious,  is  action. 
Only  so  much  do  I  know,  as  I  have  lived.  Instantly  we  know 
whose  words  are  loaded  with  life,  and  whose  not. 

The  world,  —  this  shadow  of  the  soul,  or  other  me,  lies 
wide  around.  Its  attractions  are  the  keys  which  unlock  my 
thoughts  and  make  me  acquainted  with  myself.  I  run  eagerly 
into  this  resounding  tumult.  I  grasp  the  hands  of  those  next 
me,  and  take  my  place  in  the  ring  to  suffer  and  to  work, 
taught  by  an  instinct  that  so  shall  the  dumb  abyss  be  vocal 
with  speech.  I  pierce  its  order;  I  dissipate  its  fear;  I  dispose 
of  it  within  the  circuit  of  my  expanding  life.  So  much  only 
of  life  as  I  know  by  experience,  so  much  of  the  wilderness 
have  I  vanquished  and  planted,  or  so  far  have  I  extended 
my  being,  my  dominion.  I  do  not  see  how  any  man  can 
afford,  for  the  sake  of  his  nerves,  and  his  nap,  to  spare  any 
action  in  which  he  can  partake.  It  is  pearls  and  rubies  to  his 
discourse.  Drudgery,  calamity,  exasperation,  want,  are  in 
structors  in  eloquence  and  wisdom.  The  true  scholar  grudges 
every  opportunity  of  action  past  by,  as  a  loss  of  power. 

It  is  the  raw  material  out  of  which  the  intellect  moulds 
her  splendid  products.  A  strange  process  too,  this  by  which 
experience  is  converted  into  thought,  as  a  mulberry  leaf  is 
converted  into  satin.  The  manufacture  goes  forward  at  all 
hours. 

The  actions  and  events  of  our  childhood  and  youth  are 
now  matters  of  calmest  observation.  They  lie  like  fair  pic 
tures  in  the  air.  Not  so  wTith  our  recent  actions, — with  the 
business  which  we  now  have  in  hand.  On  this  we  are  quite 
unable  to  speculate.  Our  affections  as  yet  circulate  through 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  143 

it.  We  no  more  feel  or  know  it  than  we  feel  the  feet,  or  the 
hand,  or  the  brain  of  our  body.  The  new  deed  is  yet  a  part  of 
life,  —  remains  for  a  time  immersed  in  our  unconscious  life. 
In  some  contemplative  hour  it  detaches  itself  from  the  life 
like  a  ripe  fruit,  to  become  a  thought  of  the  mind.  Instantly 
it  is  raised,  transfigured;  the  corruptible  has  put  on  incor- 
ruption.  Henceforth  it  is  an  object  of  beauty,  however  base 
its  origin  and  neighborhood.  Observe  too  the  impossibility 
of  antedating  this  act.  In  its  grub  state,  it  cannot  fly,  it 
cannot  shine,  it  is  a  dull  grub.  But  suddenly,  without  ob 
servation,  the  selfsame  thing  unfurls  beautiful  wings,  and  is 
an  angel  of  wisdom.  So  is  there  no  fact,  no  event,  in  our 
private  history,  which  shall  not,  sooner  or  later,  lose  its 
adhesive,  inert  form,  and  astonish  us  by  soaring  from  our 
body  into  the  empyrean.  Cradle  and  infancy,  school  and 
playground,  the  fear  of  boys,  and  dogs,  and  ferules,  the  love 
of  little  maids  and  berries,  and  many  another  fact  that  once 
filled  the  whole  sky,  are  gone  already;  friend  and  relative, 
profession  and  party,  town  and  country,  nation  and  world, 
must  also  soar  and  sing. 

Of  course,  he  who  has  put  forth  his  total  strength  in  fit 
actions  has  the  richest  return  of  wisdom.  I  will  not  shut 
myself  out  of  this  globe  of  action,  and  transplant  an  oak  into 
a  flower-pot,  there  to  hunger  and  pine;  nor  trust  the  revenue 
of  some  single  faculty,  and  exhaust  one  vein  of  thought, 
much  like  those  Savoyards,  who,  getting  their  livelihood 
by  carving  shepherds,  shepherdesses,  and  smoking  Dutch 
men,  for  all  Europe,  went  out  one  day  to  the  mountain  to 
find  stock,  and  discovered  that  they  had  whittled  up  the 
last  of  their  pine-trees.  Authors  we  have,  in  numbers,  who 
have  written  out  their  vein,  and  who,  moved  by  a  commend 
able  prudence,  sail  for  Greece  or  Palestine,  follow  the  trap 
per  into  the  prairie,  or  ramble  round  Algiers,  to  replenish 
their  merchantable  stock. 


144  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

If  it  were  only  for  a  vocabulary,  the  scholar  would  be 
covetous  of  action.  Life  is  our  dictionary.  Years  are  well 
spent  in  country  labors;  in  town;  in  the  insight  into  trades 
and  manufactures ;  in  frank  intercourse  with  many  men  and 
women;  in  science;  in  art;  to  the  one  end  of  mastering  in  all 
their  facts  a  language  by  which  to  illustrate  and  embody 
our  perceptions.  I  learn  immediately  from  any  speaker 
how  much  he  has  already  lived,  through  the  poverty  or  the 
splendor  of  his  speech.  Life  lies  behind  us  as  the  quarry 
from  whence  we  get  tiles  and  copestones  for  the  masonry  of 
to-day.  This  is  the  way  to  learn  grammar.  Colleges  and 
books  only  copy  the  language  which  the  field  and  the  work- 
yard  made. 

But  the  final  value  of  action,  like  that  of  books,  and  better 
than  books,  is  that  it  is  a  resource.  That  great  principle  of 
Undulation  in  nature,  that  shows  itself  in  the  inspiring  and 
expiring  of  the  breath;  in  desire  and  satiety;  in  the  ebb  and 
flow  of  the  sea;  in  day  and  night;  in  heat  and  cold;  and,  as 
yet  more  deeply  ingrained  in  every  atom  and  every  fluid,  is 
known  to  us  under  the  name  of  Polarity,  —  these  "fits  of 
easy  transmission  and  reflection,'*  as  Newton  called  them, — 
are  the  law  of  nature  because  they  are  the  law  of  spirit. 

The  mind  now  thinks,  now  acts,  and  each  fit  reproduces 
the  other.  When  the  artist  has  exhausted  his  materials, 
when  the  fancy  no  longer  paints,  when  thoughts  are  no 
longer  apprehended  and  books  are  a  weariness,  —  he  has 
always  the  resource  to  live.  Character  is  higher  than  intel 
lect.  Thinking  is  the  function.  Living  is  the  functionary. 
The  stream  retreats  to  its  source.  A  great  soul  will  be  strong 
to  live,  as  well  as  strong  to  think.  Does  he  lack  organ  or  me 
dium  to  impart  his  truth?  He  can  still  fall  back  on  this  ele 
mental  force  of  living  them.  This  is  a  total  act.  Thinking  is 
a  partial  act.  Let  the  grandeur  of  justice  shine  in  his  affairs. 
Let  the  beauty  of  affection  cheer  his  lowly  roof.  Those  "far 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  145 

from  fame,"  who  dwell  and  act  writh  him,  will  feel  the  force 
of  his  constitution  in  the  doings  and  passages  of  the  day 
better  than  it  can  be  measured  by  any  public  and  designed 
display.  Time  shall  teach  him  that  the  scholar  loses  no  hour 
which  the  man  lives.  Herein  he  unfolds  the  sacred  germ  of 
his  instinct,  screened  from  influence.  What  is  lost  in  seemli- 
ness  is  gained  in  strength.  Not  out  of  those  on  whom  sys 
tems  of  education  have  exhausted  their  culture,  comes  the 
helpful  giant  to  destroy  the  old  or  to  build  the  new,  but  out 
of  unhandselled  savage  nature;  out  of  terrible  Druids  and 
Berserkers  come  at  last  Alfred  and  Shakspeare. 

I  hear  therefore  with  joy  whatever  is  beginning  to  be  said 
of  the  dignity  and  necessity  of  labor  to  every  citizen.  There 
is  virtue  yet  in  the  hoe  and  the  spade,  for  learned  as  well  as 
for  unlearned  hands.  And  labor  is  everywhere  welcome;  al 
ways  we  are  invited  to  work;  only  be  this  limitation  ob 
served,  that  a  man  shall  not  for  the  sake  of  wider  activity 
sacrifice  any  opinion  to  the  popular  judgments  and  modes 
of  action. 

I  have  now  spoken  of  the  education  of  the  scholar  by 
nature,  by  books,  and  by  action.  It  remains  to  say  some 
what  of  his  duties. 

They  are  such  as  become  Man  Thinking.  They  may  all 
be  comprised  in  self -trust.  The  office  of  the  scholar  is  to 
cheer,  to  raise,  and  to  guide  men  by  showing  them  facts 
amidst  appearances.  He  plies  the  slow,  unhonored,  and  un 
paid  task  of  observation.  Flamsteed  and  Herschel,  in  their 
glazed  observatories,  may  catalogue  the  stars  with  the  praise 
of  all  men,  and  the  results  being  splendid  and  useful,  honor 
is  sure.  But  he,  in  his  private  observatory,  cataloguing  ob 
scure  and  nebulous  stars  of  the  human  mind,  which  as  yet 
no  man  has  thought  of  as  such,  —  watching  days  and  months 
sometimes  for  a  few  facts;  correcting  still  his  old  records;  — 


146  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

must  relinquish  display  and  immediate  fame.  In  the  long 
period  of  his  preparation  he  must  betray  often  an  ignorance 
and  shiftlessness  in  popular  arts,  incurring  the  disdain  of  the 
able  who  shoulder  him  aside.  Long  he  must  stammer  in 
his  speech ;  often  forego  the  living  for  the  dead.  Worse  yet, 
he  must  accept,  —  how  often !  poverty  and  solitude.  For 
the  ease  and  pleasure  of  treading  the  old  road,  accepting  the 
fashions,  the  education,  the  religion  of  society,  he  takes  the 
cross  of  making  his  own,  and,  of  course,  the  self -accusation, 
the  faint  heart,  the  frequent  uncertainty  and  loss  of  time, 
which  are  the  nettles  and  tangling  vines  in  the  way  of  the 
self -relying  and  self -directed ;  and  the  state  of  virtual  hos 
tility  in  which  he  seems  to  stand  to  society,  and  especially 
to  educated  society.  For  all  this  loss  and  scorn  what  offset? 
He  is  to  find  consolation  in  exercising  the  highest  functions 
of  human  nature.  He  is  one  who  raises  himself  from  private 
considerations  and  breathes  and  lives  on  public  and  illustri 
ous  thoughts.  He  is  the  world's  eye.  He  is  the  world's  heart. 
He  is  to  resist  the  vulgar  prosperity  that  retrogrades  ever  to 
barbarism,  by  preserving  and  communicating  heroic  senti 
ments,  noble  biographies,  melodious  verse,  and  the  conclu 
sions  of  history.  Whatsoever  oracles  the  human  heart,  in 
all  emergencies,  in  all  solemn  hours,  has  uttered  as  its  com 
mentary  on  the  world  of  actions,  —  these  he  shall  receive 
and  impart.  And  whatsoever  new  verdict  Reason  from  her 
inviolable  seat  pronounces  on  the  passing  men  and  events 
of  to-day,  —  this  he  shall  hear  and  promulgate. 

These  being  his  functions,  it  becomes  him  to  feel  all  con 
fidence  in  himself,  and  to  defer  never  to  the  popular  cry.  He 
and  he  only  knows  the  world.  The  world  of  any  moment  is 
the  merest  appearance.  Some  great  decorum,  some  fetish  of 
a  government,  some  ephemeral  trade,  or  war,  or  man,  is 
cried  up  by  half  mankind  and  cried  down  by  the  other  half, 
as  if  all  depended  on  this  particular  up  or  down.  The  odds 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  147 

are  that  the  whole  question  is  not  worth  the  poorest  thought 
which  the  scholar  has  lost  in  listening  to  the  controversy. 
Let  him  not  quit  his  belief  that  a  popgun  is  a  popgun,  though 
the  ancient  and  honorable  of  the  earth  affirm  it  to  be  the 
crack  of  doom.  In  silence,  in  steadiness,  in  severe  abstrac 
tion,  let  him  hold  by  himself;  add  observation  to  observa 
tion,  patient  of  neglect,  patient  of  reproach,  and  bide  his 
own  time,  —  happy  enough  if  he  can  satisfy  himself  alone 
that  this  day  he  has  seen  something  truly.  Success  treads 
on  every  right  step.  For  the  instinct  is  sure,  that  prompts 
him  to  tell  his  brother  what  he  thinks.  He  then  learns  that 
in  going  down  into  the  secrets  of  his  own  mind  he  has  de 
scended  into  the  secrets  of  all  minds.  He  learns  that  he  who 
has  mastered  any  law  in  his  private  thoughts,  is  master  to 
that  extent  of  all  men  whose  language  he  speaks,  and  of  all 
into  whose  language  his  own  can  be  translated.  The  poet, 
in  utter  solitude  remembering  his  spontaneous  thoughts  and 
recording  them,  is  found  to  have  recorded  that  which  men 
in  crowded  cities  find  true  for  them  also.  The  orator  dis 
trusts  at  first  the  fitness  of  his  frank  confessions,  his  want 
of  knowledge  of  the  persons  he  addresses,  until  he  finds  that 
he  is  the  complement  of  his  hearers;  —  that  they  drink  his 
words  because  he  fulfils  for  them  their  own  nature;  the 
deeper  he  dives  into  his  privatest,  secretest  presentiment, 
to  his  wonder  he  finds  this  is  the  most  acceptable,  most 
public,  and  universally  true.  The  people  delight  in  it;  the 
better  part  of  every  man  feels,  This  is  my  music;  this  is  my 
self. 

In  self-trust  all  the  virtues  are  comprehended.  Free 
should  the  scholar  be,  —  free  and  brave.  Free  even  to 
the  definition  of  freedom,  "without  any  hindrance  that 
does  not  arise  out  of  his  own  constitution."  Brave;  for  fear 
is  a  thing  which  a  scholar  by  his  very  function  puts  behind 
him.  Fear  always  springs  from  ignorance.  It  is  a  shame  to 


148  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

him  if  his  tranquillity,  amid  dangerous  times,  arise  from  the 
presumption  that  like  children  and  women  his  is  a  protected 
class;  or  if  he  seek  a  temporary  peace  by  the  diversion  of 
his  thoughts  from  politics  or  vexed  questions,  hiding  his 
head  like  an  ostrich  in  the  flowering  bushes,  peeping  into 
microscopes,  and  turning  rhymes,  as  a  boy  whistles  to  keep 
his  courage  up.  So  is  the  danger  a  danger  still;  so  is  the  fear 
worse.  Manlike  let  him  turn  and  face  it.  Let  him  look  into 
its  eye  and  search  its  nature,  inspect  its  origin,  —  see  the 
whelping  of  this  lion,  — which  lies  no  great  way  back;  he 
will  then  find  in  himself  a  perfect  comprehension  of  its  nature 
and  extent;  he  will  have  made  his  hands  meet  on  the  other 
side,  and  can  henceforth  defy  it  and  pass  on  superior.  The 
world  is  his  who  can  see  through  its  pretension.  What  deaf 
ness,  what  stone-blind  custom,  what  overgrown  error  you 
behold  is  there  only  by  sufferance,  —  by  your  sufferance. 
See  it  to  be  a  lie,  and  you  have  already  dealt  it  its  mortal 
blow. 

Yes,  we  are  the  cowed,  —  we  the  trustless.  It  is  a  mis 
chievous  notion  that  we  are  come  late  into  nature;  that  the 
world  was  finished  a  long  time  ago.  As  the  world  was  plastic 
and  fluid  in  the  hands  of  God,  so  it  is  ever  to  so  much  of  his 
attributes  as  we  bring  to  it.  To  ignorance  and  sin,  it  is  flint. 
They  adapt  themselves  to  it  as  they  may;  but  in  proportion 
as  a  man  has  any  thing  in  him  divine,  the  firmament  flows 
before  him  and  takes  his  signet  and  form.  Not  he  is  great 
who  can  alter  matter,  but  he  who  can  alter  my  state  of  mind. 
They  are  the  kings  of  the  world  who  give  the  color  of  their 
present  thought  to  all  nature  and  all  art,  and  persuade  men 
by  the  cheerful  serenity  of  their  carrying  the  matter,  that 
this  thing  which  they  do  is  the  apple  which  the  ages  have 
desired  to  pluck,  now  at  last  ripe,  and  inviting  nations  to  the 
harvest.  The  great  man  makes  the  great  thing.  Wherever 
Macdonald  sits,  there  is  the  head  of  the  table.  Linnaeus 


THE   AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  149 

makes  botany  the  most  alluring  of  studies,  and  wins  it  from 
the  farmer  and  the  herb-woman;  Davy,  chemistry;  and 
Cuvier,  fossils.  The  day  is  always  his  who  works  in  it  with 
serenity  and  great  aims.  The  unstable  estimates  of  men 
crowd  to  him  whose  mind  is  filled  with  a  truth,  as  the  heaped 
waves  of  the  Atlantic  follow  the  moon. 

For  this  self-trust,  the  reason  is  deeper  than  can  be 
fathomed,  —  darker  than  can  be  enlightened.  I  might  not 
carry  with  me  the  feeling  of  my  audience  in  stating  my  own 
belief.  But  I  have  already  shown  the  ground  of  my  hope,  in 
adverting  to  the  doctrine  that  man  is  one.  I  believe  man 
has  been  wronged;  he  has  wronged  himself.  He  has  almost 
lost  the  light  that  can  lead  him  back  to  his  prerogatives. 
Men  are  become  of  no  account.  Men  in  history,  men  in  the 
world  of  to-day,  are  bugs,  are  spawn,  and  called  "the  mass" 
and  "the  herd."  In  a  century,  in  a  millennium,  one  or  two 
men;  that  is  to  say,  one  or  two  approximations  to  the  right 
state  of  every  man.  All  the  rest  behold  in  the  hero  or  the 
poet  their  own  green  and  crude  being,  —  ripened;  yes,  and 
are  content  to  be  less,  so  that  may  attain  to  its  full  stature. 
What  a  testimony,  full  of  grandeur,  full  of  pity,  is  borne  to 
the  demands  of  his  own  nature,  by  the  poor  clansman,  the 
poor  partisan,  who  rejoices  in  the  glory  of  his  chief.  The  poor 
and  the  low  find  some  amends  to  their  immense  moral  ca 
pacity,  for  their  acquiescence  in  a  political  and  social  in 
feriority.  They  are  content  to  be  brushed  like  flies  from  the 
path  of  a  great  person,  so  that  justice  shall  be  done  by  him 
to  that  common  nature  which  it  is  the  dearest  desire  of  all 
to  see  enlarged  and  glorified.  They  sun  themselves  in  the 
great  man's  light,  and  feel  it  to  be  their  own  element.  They 
cast  the  dignity  of  man  from  their  downtrod  selves  upon  the 
shoulders  of  a  hero,  and  will  perish  to  add  one  drop  of  blood 
to  make  that  great  heart  beat,  those  giant  sinews  combat 
and  conquer.  He  lives  for  us,  and  we  live  in  him. 


150  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

Men  such  as  they  are,  very  naturally  seek  money  or 
power;  and  power  because  it  is  as  good  as  money,  —  the 
"spoils,"  so  called,  "of  office."  And  why  not?  for  they 
aspire  to  the  highest,  and  this,  in  their  sleep-walking,  they 
dream  is  highest.  Wake  them  and  they  shall  quit  the  false 
good  and  leap  to  the  true,  and  leave  governments  to  clerks 
and  desks.  This  revolution  is  to  be  wrought  by  the  gradual 
domestication  of  the  idea  of  Culture.  The  main  enterprise 
of  the  world  for  splendor,  for  extent,  is  the  upbuilding  of  a 
man.  Here  are  the  materials  strewn  along  the  ground.  The 
private  life  of  one  man  shall  be  a  more  illustrious  monarchy, 
more  formidable  to  its  enemy,  more  sweet  and  serene  in  its 
influence  to  its  friend,  than  any  kingdom  in  history.  For  a 
man,  rightly  viewed,  comprehendeth  the  particular  natures 
of  all  men.  Each  philosopher,  each  bard,  each  actor  has  only 
done  for  me,  as  by  a  delegate,  what  one  day  I  can  do  for 
myself.  The  books  which  once  we  valued  more  than  the 
apple  of  the  eye,  we  have  quite  exhausted.  What  is  that  but 
saying  that  we  have  come  up  with  the  point  of  view  which 
the  universal  mind  took  through  the  eyes  of  one  scribe;  we 
have  been  that  man,  and  have  passed  on.  First,  one,  then 
another,  we  drain  all  cisterns,  and  waxing  greater  by  all 
these  supplies,  we  crave  a  better  and  more  abundant  food. 
The  man  has  never  lived  that  can  feed  us  ever.  The  human 
mind  cannot  be  enshrined  in  a  person  who  shall  set  a  barrier 
on  any  one  side  to  this  unbounded,  unboundable  empire. 
It  is  one  central  fire,  which,  flaming  now  out  of  the  lips  of 
Etna,  lightens  the  capes  of  Sicily,  and  now  out  of  the  throat 
of  Vesuvius,  illuminates  the  towers  and  vineyards  of  Naples. 
It  is  one  light  which  beams  out  of  a  thousand  stars.  It  is  one 
soul  which  animates  all  men. 

But  I  have  dwelt  perhaps  tediously  upon  this  abstraction 
of  the  Scholar.  I  ought  not  to  delay  longer  to  add  what  I 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  151 

have  to  say  of  nearer  reference  to  the  time  and  to  this 
country. 

Historically,  there  is  thought  to  be  a  difference  in  the 
ideas  which  predominate  over  successive  epochs,  and  there 
are  data  for  marking  the  genius  of  the  Classic,  of  the  Ro 
mantic,  and  now  of  the  Reflective  or  Philosophical  age. 
With  the  views  I  have  intimated  of  the  oneness  or  the  iden 
tity  of  the  mind  through  all  individuals,  I  do  not  much  dwell 
on  these  differences.  In  fact,  I  believe  each  individual  passes 
through  all  three.  The  boy  is  a  Greek;  the  youth,  roman 
tic;  the  adult,  reflective.  I  deny  not,  however,  that  a  revo 
lution  in  the  leading  idea  may  be  distinctly  enough  traced. 

Our  age  is  bewailed  as  the  age  of  Introversion.  Must  that 
needs  be  evil?  We,  it  seems,  are  critical;  we  are  embarrassed 
with  second  thoughts;  we  cannot  enjoy  any  thing  for  hanker 
ing  to  know  whereof  the  pleasure  consists;  we  are  lined  with 
eyes;  we  see  with  our  feet;  the  time  is  infected  with  Ham 
let's  unhappiness,  — 

"Sicklied  o'er  with  the  pale  cast  of  thought." 

It  is  so  bad  then?  Sight  is  the  last  thing  to  be  pitied. 
Would  we  be  blind?  Do  we  fear  lest  we  should  outsee  nature 
and  God,  and  drink  truth  dry?  I  look  upon  the  discontent 
of  the  literary  class  as  a  mere  announcement  of  the  fact  that 
they  find  themselves  not  in  the  state  of  mind  of  their  fathers, 
and  regret  the  coming  state  as  untried;  as  a  boy  dreads  the 
water  before  he  has  learned  that  he  can  swim.  If  there  is 
any  period  one  would  desire  to  be  born  in,  is  it  not  the  age  of 
Revolution;  when  the  old  and  the  new  stand  side  by  side 
and  admit  of  being  compared;  when  the  energies  of  all  men 
are  searched  by  fear  and  by  hope;  when  the  historic  glories 
of  the  old  can  be  compensated  by  the  rich  possibilities  of  the 
new  era?  This  time,  like  all  times,  is  a  very  good  one,  if  we 
but  know  what  to  do  with  it. 


152  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

I  read  with  some  joy  of  the  auspicious  signs  of  the 
coming  days,  as  they  glimmer  already  through  poetry  and 
art,  through  philosophy  and  science,  through  church  and 
state. 

One  of  these  signs  is  the  fact  that  the  same  movement 
which  affected  the  elevation  of  what  was  called  the  lowest 
class  in  the  state,  assumed  in  literature  a  very  marked  and 
as  benign  an  aspect.  Instead  of  the  sublime  and  beautiful, 
the  near,  the  low,  the  common,  was  explored  and  poetized. 
That  which  had  been  negligently  trodden  under  foot  by  those 
who  were  harnessing  and  provisioning  themselves  for  long 
journeys  into  far  countries,  is  suddenly  found  to  be  richer 
than  all  foreign  parts.  The  literature  of  the  poor,  the  feelings 
of  the  child,  the  philosophy  of  the  street,  the  meaning  of 
household  life,  are  the  topics  of  the  time.  It  is  a  great  stride. 
It  is  a  sign,  —  is  it  not?  of  new  vigor  when  the  extremities 
are  made  active,  when  currents  of  warm  life  run  into  the 
hands  and  the  feet.  I  ask  not  for  the  great,  the  remote,  the 
romantic;  what  is  doing  in  Italy  or  Arabia;  what  is  Greek 
art,  or  Provengal  minstrelsy;  I  embrace  the  common,  I  ex 
plore  and  sit  at  the  feet  of  the  familiar,  the  low.  Give  me 
insight  into  to-day,  and  you  may  have  the  antique  and 
future  worlds.  What  would  we  really  know  the  meaning  of? 
The  meal  in  the  firkin;  the  milk  in  the  pan;  the  ballad  in  the 
street;  the  news  of  the  boat;  the  glance  of  the  eye;  the  form 
and  the  gait  of  the  body;  —  show  me  the  ultimate  reason 
of  these  matters;  show  me  the  sublime  presence  of  the  high 
est  spiritual  cause  lurking,  as  always  it  does  lurk,  in  these 
suburbs  and  extremities  of  nature;  let  me  see  every  trifle 
bristling  with  the  polarity  that  ranges  it  instantly  on  an 
eternal  law;  and  the  shop,  the  plough,  and  the  ledger  referred 
to  the  like  cause  by  which  light  undulates  and  poets  sing;  — 
and  the  world  lies  no  longer  a  dull  miscellany  and  lumber- 
room,  but  has  form  and  order;  there  is  no  trifle,  there  is  no 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  153 

puzzle,  but  one  design  unites  and  animates  the  farthest 
pinnacle  and  the  lowest  trench. 

This  idea  has  inspired  the  genius  of  Goldsmith,  Burns, 
Cowper,  and,  in  a  newer  time,  of  Goethe,  Wordsworth,  and 
Carlyle.  This  idea  they  have  differently  followed  and  with 
various  success.  In  contrast  with  their  writing,  the  style  of 
Pope,  of  Johnson,  of  Gibbon,  looks  cold  and  pedantic.  This 
writing  is  blood-warm.  Man  is  surprised  to  find  that  things 
near  are  not  less  beautiful  and  wondrous  than  things  remote, 
The  near  explains  the  far.  The  drop  is  a  small  ocean.  A 
man  is  related  to  all  nature.  This  perception  of  the  worth 
of  the  vulgar  is  fruitful  in  discoveries.  Goethe,  in  this  very 
thing  the  most  modern  of  the  moderns,  has  shown  us,  as 
none  ever  did,  the  genius  of  the  ancients. 

There  is  one  man  of  genius  who  has  done  much  for  this 
philosophy  of  life,  whose  literary  value  has  never  yet  been 
rightly  estimated;  —  I  mean  Emanuel  Swedenborg.  The 
most  imaginative  of  men,  yet  writing  with  the  precision  of 
a  mathematician,  he  endeavored  to  engraft  a  purely  philo 
sophical  Ethics  on  the  popular  Christianity  of  his  time.  Such 
an  attempt  of  course  must  have  difficulty  which  no  genius 
could  surmount.  But  he  saw  and  showed  the  connection 
between  nature  and  the  affections  of  the  soul.  He  pierced 
the  emblematic  or  spiritual  character  of  the  visible,  audible, 
tangible  world.  Especially  did  his  shade-loving  muse  hover 
over  and  interpret  the  lower  parts  of  nature;  he  showed  the 
mysterious  bond  that  allies  moral  evil  to  the  foul  material 
forms,  and  has  given  in  epical  parables  a  theory  of  insanity, 
of  beasts,  of  unclean  and  fearful  things. 

Another  sign  of  our  times,  also  marked  by  an  analogous 
political  movement,  is  the  new  importance  given  to  the 
single  person.  Every  thing  that  tends  to  insulate  the  indi 
vidual,  —  to  surround  him  with  barriers  of  natural  respect, 
so  that  each  man  shall  feel  the  world  is  his,  and  man  shall 


154  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

treat  with  man  as  a  sovereign  state  with  a  sovereign  state, 
-tends  to  true  union  as  well  as  greatness.  "I  learned," 
said  the  melancholy  Pestalozzi,  "that  no  man  in  God's 
wide  earth  is  either  willing  or  able  to  help  any  other  man." 
Help  must  come  from  the  bosom  alone.  The  scholar  is  that 
man  who  must  take  up  into  himself  all  the  ability  of  the 
time,  all  the  contributions  of  the  past,  all  the  hopes  of  the 
future.  He  must  be  an  university  of  knowledges.  If  there 
be  one  lesson  more  than  another  which  should  pierce  his  ear, 
it  is,  The  world  is  nothing,  the  man  is  all;  in  yourself  is  the 
law  of  all  nature,  and  you  know  not  yet  how  a  globule  of  sap 
ascends;  in  yourself  slumbers  the  whole  of  Reason;  it  is  for 
you  to  know  all;  it  is  for  you  to  dare  all.  (Mr.  President  and 
Gentlemen,  this  confidence  in  the  unsearched  might  of  man 
belongs,  by  all  motives,  by  all  prophecy,  by  all  preparation, 
to  the  American  Scholar.  We  have  listened  too  long  to  the 
courtly  muses  of  Europe.  The  spirit  of  the  American  free 
man  is  already  suspected  to  be  timid,  imitative,  tame.  Pub 
lic  and  private  avarice  make  the  air  we  breathe  thick  and 
fat.  The  scholar  is  decent,  indolent,  complaisant.  See  al 
ready  the  tragic  consequence.  The  mind  of  this  country, 
taught  to  aim  at  low  objects,  eats  upon  itself.  There  is  no 
work  for  any  but  the  decorous  and  the  complaisant.  Young 
men  of  the  fairest  promise,  who  begin  life  upon  our  shores, 
inflated  by  the  mountain  winds,  shined  upon  by  all  the  stars 
of  God,  find  the  earth  below  not  in  unison  with  these,  but  are 
hindered  from  action  by  the  disgust  which  the  principles  on 
which  business  is  managed  inspire,  and  turn  drudges,  or  die 
of  disgust,  some  of  them  suicides.  What  is  the  remedy? 
They  did  not  yet  see,  and  thousands  of  young  men  as  hope 
ful  now  crowding  to  the  barriers  for  the  career  do  not  yet 
seg^that  if  the  single  man  plant  himself  indomitably  on  his 
instincts,  and  there  abide,  the  huge  world  will  come  round 
to  him.  Patience,  —  patience;  with  the  shades  of  all  the 


THE  AMERICAN  SCHOLAR  155 

good  and  great  for  company;  and  for  solace  the  perspective 
of  your  own  infinite  life;  and  for  work  the  study  and  the 
communication  of  principles,  the  making  those  instincts 
prevalent,  the  conversion  of  the  world.  Is  it  not  the  chief 
disgrace  in  the  world,  not  to  be  an  unit;  —  not  to  be  reck 
oned  one  character;  —  not  to  yield  that  peculiar  fruit  which 
each  man  was  created  to  bear,  but  to  be  reckoned  in  the 
gross,  in  the  hundred,  or  the  thousand,  of  the  party,  the 
section,  to  which  we  belong;  and  our  opinion  predicted 
geographically,  as  the  north,  or  the  south?  Not  so,  brothers 
and  friends,  —  please  God,  ours  shall  not  be  so.  We  will 
walk  on  our  own  feet ;  we  will  work  with  our  own  hands ;  we 
will  speak  our  own  minds.  The  study  of  letters  shall  be  no 
longer  a  name  for  pity,  for  doubt,  and  for  sensual  indul 
gence.  The  dread  of  man  and  the  love  of  man  shall  be  a  wall 
of  defence  and  a  wreath  of  joy  around  all.  A  nation  of  men 
will  for  the  first  time  exist,  because  each  believes  himself  in 
spired  by  the  Divine  Soul  which  also  inspires  all  men. 


DEMOCRACY  IN  EDUCATION  1 
PHILANDER  P.  CLAXTON 

A  STUDY  of  the  chapters  of  the  portion  of  the  report  sub 
mitted  herewith  ancl  of  certain  other  chapters  which  were 
not  ready  in  time  to  be  included  in  this  report  shows  that 
within  the  year  there  has  been  in  this  country  an  increase  in 
tendency  toward  democracy  in  education,  toward  giving  to 
every  child  of  whatever  condition  a  full  and  equal  oppor 
tunity  with  all  other  children  for  that  degree  and  kind  of 
education,  that  quantity  and  quality  of  education,  which 
will  develop  in  the  fullest  measure  its  manhood  or  woman 
hood,  its  human  qualities,  prepare  it  for  the  duties  and  re 
sponsibilities  of  democratic  citizenship,  for  participation  in 
civic  and  social  life,  and  for  making  an  honest  living,  con 
tributing  its  part  to  the  Commonwealth,  and  serving  hu 
manity  by  some  useful  occupation,  followed  intelligently 
and  skillfully  with  good-will  and  strong  purpose.  In  a  larger 
degree  than  ever  before  are  we  beginning  to  understand  that, 
next  to  the  right  to  live,  this  is  the  most  important  right  of 
every  child.  If  democracy  has  any  valuable  and  ultimate 
meaning  it  is  equality  of  opportunity.  But  there  can  be  no 
equality  of  opportunity  without  equality  of  opportunity  in 
education.  If  to  any  child  this  is  denied  and  it  is  permitted 
to  grow  to  manhood  or  womanhood  without  that  education 
which  prepares  it  for  good  living,  for  the  duties  and  respon 
sibilities  of  citizenship,  and  for  making  an  honest  living  by 
some  intelligent,  useful  occupation,  then  there  is  nothing 

1  From  the  Report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education 
11915),  vol.  i,  p.  xvi. 


DEMOCRACY  IN  EDUCATION  157 

which  individual  or  society  can  do,  nothing  which  man  or 
God  can  do,  to  make  good  the  loss. •.  More  than  ever  before 
are  we  beginning  to  understand  that  material  progress, 
social  purity,  civic  righteousness,  political  stability  and 
strength,  and  the  possibilities  of  culture  and  the  attain 
ment  of  higher  ideals,  all  depend  on  the  right  education  of 
all  the  people.  If  any  man  "or  woman  follows  his  or  her 
trade  or  profession  with  less  intelligence  and  skill  than  he  or 
she  might,  the  total  amount  of  wealth  produced  is  less  than 
it  might  be.  If  any  lack  knowledge  of  fundamental  prin 
ciples  of  government  and  institutional  life  necessary  for  in 
telligent  citizenship  in  our  democracy,  the  civic  and  political 
life  of  city,  State,  and  Nation  is  affected  thereby.  If  the 
health,  the  culture,  or  the  moral  education  of  any  has  been 
neglected,  all  society  and  each  of  its  members  must  suffer  as 
a  result.  If  any,  through  wrong  education  or  the  inculcation 
of  false  ideals,  work  at  occupations  for  which  they  are  not 
fitted  or  in  which  they  may  not  serve  themselves  and  so 
ciety  as  well  as  they  might  in  other  ways,  their  own  lives 
and  the  lives  of  us  all  are  less  full  and  satisfactory  than  they 
might  otherwise  be.  We  are  bound  up  in  the  sheaf  of  life 
together,  and  our  interests  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest 
and  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest  are  inextricably  inter 
woven.  Therefore  the  liberal  use  of  public  funds  for  the  sup 
port  of  schools  and  other  agencies  of  education  is  more  and 
more  clearly  recognized  as  good  business,  and  careful  think 
ing  and  planning  for  the  fullest  and  best  education  of  all  the 
children  of  all  the  people  as  the  highest  duty  of  citizenship. 


CAN  DEMOCRACY  BE  ORGANIZED?  1 
EDWIN  A.  ALDERMAN 

THE  United  States  of  America  is  one  of  the  oldest  Gov 
ernments  on  earth.  England  and  Russia  alone,  among  the 
nations  of  Europe,  equal  it  in  age,  and  even  England  has 
undergone  such  radical  changes  in  the  past  century,  as  com 
pared  with  the  United  States,  as  to  constitute  us,  with  our 
unchanged  Government  since  1789,  the  most  stable  of 
modern  nations.  Our  nearness  to  the  perspective  and  our 
absorption  in  our  own  life  have  blinded  us  to  the  inspiring 
National  panorama,  as  it  has  unfolded  itself  before  the  world. 
First,  a  group  of  rustic  communities,  making  common  cause 
in  behalf  of  ancient  guarantees  of  English  freedom;  then  sus 
picious  colonies,  unused  to  the  ways  of  democracies,  striv 
ing  after  some  bond  amid  the  clash  of  jealous  interests;  then 
a  wonderful  paper-writing,  compact  of  high  sense  and  hu 
man  foresight  and  tragic  compromise;  then  a  young  Re 
public,  lacking  the  instinct  of  unity,  but  virile,  unlovely, 
raw,  wayward,  in  its  confident  young  strength.  Some  con 
fused  decades  of  sad,  earnest  effort  to  pluck  out  an  evil 
growrth  planted  in  its  life  by  the  hard  necessities  of  compro 
mise  by  the  fathers,  but  which  needs  must  blossom  into  the 
flower  of  civil  war  before  it  could  be  plucked  out  and  thrown 
to  the  void.  Then  young  manhood,  nursing  its  youth,  whole 
and  undivisible,  proven  by  trial  of  fire  and  dark  days,  open 
ing  its  eye  upon  a  new  world  of  steam  and  force,  and  seizing 

1  Spoken  before  the  North  Carolina  Literary  and  Historical  Society,  No 
vember  9,  1915,  by  the  president  of  the  University  of  Virginia.  Reprinted 
from  the  Proceedings  of  the  Society  with  the  generous  permission  of  the 
author. 


\ 


CAN  DEMOCRACY  BE  ORGANIZED?  159 

greedily  and  selfishly  every  coign  of  vantage;  and  to-day 
the  most  venerable  Republic,  the  richest  of  nations,  the 
champion  and  exemplar  of  World  Democracy. 

No  nation,  I  venture  to  assert,  was  ever  born  grounded  on 
so  definite  and  fixed  a  principle  and  with  so  conscious  a  pur 
pose.  Such  a  wealth  of  hope  for  humanity  never  before 
gathered  about  a  mere  political  experiment,  and  such  a  mass 
of  pure  idealism  never  before  suffused  itself  into  the  frame 
work  of  a  State.  How  can  such  a  Nation  so  begun,  so  ad 
vanced,  so  beset,  be  so  guided,  that  all  of  its  citizens  shall 
indeed  become  free  men,  entering  continually  into  the  pos 
session  of  intellectual,  material,  and  moral  benefits?  How 
can  a  people  devoted  to  individualism  and  freedom  retain 
that  individualism  which  guarantees  freedom  and  yet  en 
graft  upon  their  social  order  that  genius  for  cooperation 
which  alone  insures  power  and  progress?  These  are  the 
final  interrogatories  of  democracy  as  a  sane  vision  glimpses 
it,  robbed  of  its  earlier  illusions.  The  fathers  of  this  Re 
public  did  not  understand  the  present  mould  of  democracy. 
The  very  word  was  obnoxious  to  them.  Their  ideal  was  a 
State  the  citizens  of  which  chose  their  leaders  and  then 
trusted  them.  They  did  not  foresee  the  socialized  State. 
They  did  not  envisage  a  minute  and  paternal  organization  of 
society  which  may  be  achieved  alike  by  Prussian  absolut 
ism  or  mere  socialism,  which  is  chronologically,  if  not  logi 
cally,  the  child  of  democracy.  The  fear  that  tugged  at  their 
hearts  was  the  fear  of  tyranny,  the  dread  of  kings,  the  denial 
of  self -direction,  which  prevented  a  man  from  speaking  his 
opinion  or  going  his  way  as  he  willed.  Their  democracy  was 
a  working  government  which  should  give  effect  to  the  will 
of  the  people  and  at  the  same  time  provide  sufficient  safe 
guard  for  individual  liberty.  The'  emphasis  of  the  time  was 
everywhere  upon  the  rights  of  the  individual  rather  more 
than  upon  the  duties  of  the  citizen.  When  their  theories,  as 


160  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

Mr.  Hadley  points  out,  seemed  likely  to  secure  this  result, 
the  fathers  published  them  boldly;  when  they  seemed  likely 
to  interfere,  they  ignored  them.  The  creed,  then,  which  had 
a  religious  sanction  in  an  age  of  moral  imagination  to  men 
of  superb  human  enthusiasm  like  Washington,  Franklin, 
Jefferson,  and  Adams,  was  the  belief  that  democracy,  con 
sidered  as  individual  freedom,  was  the  final  form  of  human 
society.  It  is  idle  to  deny  that  a  century  of  trial  has  some 
what  dulled  the  halo  about  this  ancient  concept  of  democ 
racy,  but  in  my  judgment  only  to  men  of  little  faith.  It  is 
quite  true  that  our  democracy  of  to-day  is  not  what  Rous 
seau  thought  it  would  be,  nor  Lord  Byron,  nor  Shelley,  nor 
Karl  Marx.  But  as  we  meditate  about  it  and  conclude  that 
it  has  not  realized  all  of  its  hopes,  we  ought  to  try  to  settle 
first  what  it  has  done  and  then  place  that  to  its  credit.  Here 
are  some  things  that  I  think  democracy  has  done,  or  helped 
to  do.  It  has/abated  sectarian  fury.  Sectarian  fury  is  ridic 
ulous  in  this  age;  it  was  not  always  so.  It  has  abolished 
slavery.  It  has  protected  and  enlarged  manhood  suffrage 
and  has  gone  far  toward  womanhood  suffrage.  It  has  miti 
gated  much  social  injustice.  It  has  developed  a  touching 
and  almost  sublime  faith  in  the  power  of  education,  illus 
trating  it  by  expending  six  hundred  million  dollars  a  year  in 
the  most  daring  thing  that  democracy  has  ever  tried  to  do; 
namely,  to  fit  for  citizenship  every  human  being  born  within 
its  borders.  It  has  increased  kindness  and  gentleness,  and 
thus  diminished  the  fury  of  partisanship.  It  has  preserved 
the  form  of  the  Union  through  the  storm  of  a  civil  war,  and 
yet  has  had  power  to  touch  with  healing  unity  and  forgive 
ness  its  passions  and  tragedies.  It  has  conquered  and  civilized 
a  vast  continent.  It  has  developed  great  agencies  of  culture 
and  has  somehow  made  itself  a  symbol  of  individual  pros 
perity.  It  has  developed  a  common  consciousness  and  a  vol 
unteer  statesmanship  among  its  free  citizens  as  manifested 


CAN  DEMOCRACY  BE  ORGANIZED?  161 

more  strikingly  than  elsewhere  in  the  world  in  great  edu 
cational,  religious,  scientific  and  philanthropic  societies, 
which  profoundly  influence  and  mould  society.  Out  of 
what  other  State  could  have  issued  as  a  volunteer  move 
ment  so  efficient  an  agency  as  the  Commission  for  the  Relief 
of  Belgium  or  the  Rockefeller  Sanitary  Commission?  It 
has  permitted  and  fostered  the  growth  of  a  public  press  of 
gigantic  power  reflecting  the  crudities  and  impulses  of  a 
vast  and  varied  population,  but  charged  with  a  fierce  ideal 
ism  and  staunch  patriotism  that  have  almost  given  it  a  place 
among  the  coordinate  branches  of  our  organized  Govern 
ment.  It  has  stimulated  inventive  genius  and  business  en 
terprise  to  a  point  never  before  reached  in  human  annals. 
It  has  brought  to  American-mindedness  millions  of  men  of 
all  races,  creeds  and  ideals.  I  do  not,  therefore,  think  that 
democracy  as  it  has  evolved  among  us  has  failed.  What  au 
tocracy  on  earth  has  done  as  much?  It  has  justified  itself  of 
the  sufferings  and  sacrifices  and  the  dreams  of  the  men  who 
established  it  in  this  new  land.  But  it  has  also  without 
doubt,  by  the  very  trust  that  it  places  in  men,  developed 
new  shapes  of  temptations  and  wrong-doing.  Democracy, 
like  a  man's  character,  is  never  clear  out  of  danger.  The 
moral  life  of  men,  said  Froude,  is  like  the  flight  of  a  bird  in 
the  air;  he  is  sustained  only  by  effort,  and  when  he  ceases  to 
exert  himself  he  falls.  And  the  same,  it  seems  to  me,  is  im 
pressively  true  of  institutional  and  governmental  life. 

Patriotism  —  which  is  hard  to  define  and  new  with  every 
age  —  and  public  spirit  —  which  is  hard  to  define  and  new 
with  every  age  —  must  constantly  redefine  themselves.  Pa 
triotism  meant  manhood's  rights  when  Washington  took  it  to 
his  heart.  It  somehow  spelled  culture,  refinement  and  dis 
tinction  of  mind  when  Emerson  in  his  Phi  Beta  Kappa  ad 
dress  besought  the  sluggish  intellect  of  his  country  to  look  up 
from  under  its  iron  lids.  It  signified  National  ideals  and 


1C2  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

theories  of  government  to  the  soldiers  of  Lee  and  to  the 
soldiers  of  Grant.  It  meant  industrial  greatness  and  a 
splendid  desire  to  annex  nature  to  man's  uses  when  the 
great  business  leaders  of  this  generation  and  of  the  last  gen 
eration  built  up  their  great  businesses  and  tied  the  Union 
together  in  a  unity  of  steel  and  steam  more  completely  than 
all  the  wars  could  do,  and  did  it  with  a  patriotism  and  a 
statesmanship  and  an  imagination  that  no  man  can  deny. 
The  honest  business  man  needs  somebody  to  praise  him.  He 
has  done  a  great  service  in  this  country,  and  when  he  is 
steady  and  honest  there  is  no  greater  force  in  all  our  life.  A 
decade  ago  patriotism  in  America  meant  a  reaction  from  an 
unsocial  and  selfish  individualism  to  restraint  and  consid 
eration  for  the  general  welfare,  expressing  itself  in  a  cry  for 
moderation  and  fairness  and  justice  and  sympathy  in  the 
use  of  power  and  wealth  as  the  states  of  spirit  and  mind 
that  alone  can  safeguard  republican  ideals.  The  emphasis, 
as  I  have  said,  was  formerly  on  the  rights  of  man;  it  is  get 
ting  to  be  placed,  as  Mazzini  preached,  upon  the  duties  of 
man.  If  in  our  youth  and  feverish  strength  there  had  grown 
up  a  spirit  of  avarice  and  a  desire  for  quick  wealth,  and 
a  theory  of  life  in  lesser  minds  that  estimated  money  as 
everything  and  was  willing  to  do  anything  for  money,  that 
very  fact  served  to  define  the  patriotic  duty  and  mood  of  the 
National  mind.  This  reawakened  patriotism  of  the  com 
mon  good  had  the  advantage  of  appeal  to  a  sound  public 
conscience,  and  of  being  supported  by  a  valid  public  opinion. 
The  part  that  vulgar  cunning  has  played  in  creating  great 
fortunes  has  been  made  known  to  this  democracy  and  they 
are  coming  to  know  the  genuine  from  the  spurious,  and  some 
who  were  once  looked  at  with  admiration  and  approval  as 
great  ones,  are  not  now  seen  in  that  light. 

This  very  growth  in  discernment  gave  us  power  to  see  in  a 
nobler  and  truer  light,  for  the  people  of  America,  the  names 


CAN  DEMOCRACY  BE  ORGANIZED?  163 

of  those  upright  souls  in  business  and  in  politics  —  and 
there  are  many  noble  men  in  business  and  politics  —  who 
have  held  true  in  a  heady  time  and  who  have  kept  clean  and 
kept  human  their  public  sympathies  and  their  republican 
ideals  and  by  so  doing  have  kept  sweet  their  country's  fame. 
Democracy  simply  had  met  and  outfaced  one  of  the  million 
moral  crises  that  are  likely  to  assail  free  government,  and  I 
believe  that  it  is  cleaner  to-day  in  ruling  passion,  in  motive, 
and  in  practice  than  it  has  been  in  fifty  years. 

It  is  now  clear  to  all  minds  that  the  movement  of  our  busi 
ness  operations  in  this  Republic,  unregulated  and  proceed 
ing  along  individualistic  lines,  had  come  perilously  near  to 
developing  a  scheme  of  monopoly  and  a  union  of  our  polit 
ical  machinery  with  the  forces  of  private  gain  that  might 
easily  have  transformed  our  democracy  into  some  ugly  form 
of  tyranny  and  injustice.  We  have  halted  this  tendency 
somewhat  tardily,  but  resolutely,  and  the  nerves  of  the 
Nation  were  somewhat  shaken  by  the  very  thought  of  what 
might  have  been,  very  much  as  a  man  gazes  with  gratitude 
and  yet  with  fear  upon  a  hidden  precipice  over  which  his 
pathway  led.  We  had  been  saying  over  and  over  to  ourselves 
with  fierce  determination  that  this  Nation  should  remain 
democratic,  and  should  not  become  plutocratic  or  auto 
cratic  or  socialistic;  and  we  should  find  the  way  to  guarantee 
this.  All  about  us  were  heard  the  voices  of  those  who  thought 
they  saw  the  way  and  who  were  beckoning  men  to  follow, 
but  new  dangers  faced  us,  however,  even  as  we  left  the  an 
cient  highway  and  attempted  to  cut  new  paths,  for  in  en 
deavoring  to  make  it  possible  for  democracy,  as  we  under 
stood  it,  and  a  vast  industrialism,  as  we  had  developed  it,  to 
live  together  justly  under  the  same  political  roof,  we  had 
plainly  come  to  a  point  where  there  was  danger  of  our  Gov 
ernment  developing  into  a  system  of  State  socialism  in  con 
flict  with  our  deepest  traditions  and  convictions.  The  lead- 


164  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

ership  of  the  future,  therefore,  would  have  a  triple  problem 
-  to  protect  the  people  against  privilege,  to  raise  the  levels 
of  democratic  living,  and  to  preserve  for  the  people  the  an 
cient  guarantees  and  inestimable  advantages  of  representa 
tive  government  and  individual  initiative. 

You  will  observe  that  I  have  thus  far  spoken  as  a  citizen 
preoccupied  with  the  thoughts  of  that  ancient  world  which 
ended  on  August  1,  1914,  and  I  have  not  permitted  myself 
to  align  and  examine  in  full  the  perils  and  weaknesses  of 
democratic  society  as  they  had  manifested  themselves  under 
conditions  of  peace  and  apparent  prosperity.  These  weak 
nesses  had  already  begun,  under  the  strain  of  ordinary  indus 
trial  life,  to  reveal  themselves  under  five  general  aspects,  each 
aspect  being  in  essence  a  sort  of  revulsion  or  excess  of  feel 
ing  from  what  were  considered  definite  political  virtues :  — 

1.  A  contempt  of  obedience  as  a  virtue  too  closely  allied 
to  servility. 

2.  A  disregard  of  discipline  as  smacking  too  much  of 
docility. 

3.  An  impatience  with  trained  technical  skill  as  seeming 
to  affirm  that  one  man  is  not  as  good  as  another. 

4.  A  failure  to  understand  the  value  of  the  common  man 
as  a  moral  and  political  asset  and  an  inability  to  coordinate 
education  to  daily  life  as  a  means  of  forwarding  national 
ends  and  ideals. 

5.  A  crass  individualism  which  exalted  self  and  its  rights 
above  society  and  the  solemn  social  obligation  to  cooperate 
for  the  common  good. 

The  theory  of  democracy  which  alone  among  great  human 
movements  had  known  no  setback  for  a  century  of  time,  was 
fast  becoming  self -critical  and  disposed  to  self -analysis,  and 
especially  in  America  these  fundamental  weaknesses  were 
being  assailed  in  practical  forms.  The  liberal  or  progressive 


CAN  DEMOCRACY  BE  ORGANIZED?  165 

movement  in  our  politics  was  striking  at  the  theory  of  crass 
individualism,  and  after  the  unbalanced  fashion  of  social  re 
form  was  moving  toward  pure  democracy  of  State  socialism 
in  the  interest  of  communal  welfare.  Our  old,  original,  in 
tense  American  individualism,  shamed  by  its  ill-governed 
cities  and  lack  of  concern  for  popular  welfare,  had  passed 
forever.  Socialism,  considered  as  a  paternal  form  of  govern 
ment,  exercising  strict  regulation  over  men's  lives  and  de 
stroying  individual  energy  and  initiative,  was  still  feared 
and  resisted;  but  the  social  goal  of  democracy  was  becom 
ing  even  by  the  most  conservative,  to  be  considered  the  ad 
vancement  and  improvement  of  society  by  a  protection  of 
life  and  health,  by  a  reformation  of  educational  methods  and 
by  a  large  amount  of  governmental  control  of  fundamentals 
for  the  common  good.  A  multitude  of  laws,  ranging  from 
laws  governing  milk  for  babies,  to  public  parks  and  free  dis 
pensaries  and  vast  corporations,  attested  the  vigor  of  this 
new  attitude.  And  strange  to  say  this  new  spirit  was  not 
wholly  self-begotten.  Plutocracy,  with  its  common  sense, 
its  economies  and  hatred  of  waste,  its  organization  and  its 
energy,  had  taught  us  much.  We,  too,  had  caught  a  spirit 
from  what  we  used  to  call  effete  Europe.  Australia  taught 
us  how  to  vote;  Belgium,  Germany,  and  England  that  there 
was  a  democracy  adapted  to  city  and  factory  as  well  as  to 
the  farm  and  country-side. 

The  forces  of  education  were  pleading  the  cause  of  team 
work  in  modern  life,  scientifically  directed,  not  by  amateurs 
and  demagogues,  but  by  experts  and  scientists,  whether  in 
city  government  or  public  hygiene  or  scientific  land  cul 
ture,  while  seriousness  and  self -restraint  were  everywhere 
the  themes  of  public  teachers,  pleading  for  order  and  organ 
ization  as  an  ideal  of  public  welfare,  nearly  as  vital  as  liberty 
and  self -direction.  And  then,  without  warning,  fell  out  this 
great  upheaval  of  the  world,  so  vast,  so  fundamental,  despite 


166  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

its  sordid  and  stupid  beginnings,  that  the  dullest  among  us 
must  dimly  realize  that  a  new  epoch  has  registered  itself  in 
human  affairs.  War  is  a  great  pitiless  flame.  It  sweeps  its 
fiery  torch  along  the  ways  of  men,  destroying  but  renovating, 
killing  but  quickening,  and  even  amid  its  horrors  of  cor 
ruption  and  death  leaving  white  ashes  cleanly  and  fertile. 
War  is  also  a  ghastly  mirror  in  which  actualities  and  ideals 
and  tendencies  reflect  themselves  in  awful  vividness.  Who 
caused  this  war,  who  will  be  aggrandized  by  this  war  —  its 
triumphs  and  humiliations  —  are  important  and  moving, 
but  not  vital  questions.  The  fundamental  question  is  what 
effect  will  its  reactions  have  upon  that  movement  of  the 
human  spirit  called  democracy,  begun  so  simply,  advanced 
so  steadfastly,  yesterday  acclaimed  as  the  highest  develop 
ment  of  human  polity,  but  to-day  already  being  sneered  at 
and  snarled  at  by  a  host  of  enemies.  Will  war,  the  harshest 
of  human  facts,  destroy,  weaken,  modify,  or  strengthen  es 
sential  democracy?  It  is  my  conviction  that  the  Allies  in  this 
struggle  are  fighting  for  democracy  —  at  least  for  the  brand 
of  democracy  with  which  my  spirit  is  familiar  and  which  my 
soul  has  learned  to  love.  Once  more  in  the  great  human 
story,  the  choice  is  being  made  between  contrasting  civiliza 
tions,  between  ideals  and  institutions,  between  liberty  and  the 
lesser  life.  Every  drop  of  my  blood  leaps  to  sympathy  with 
those  peoples  who,  heedless  of  inexorable  efficiency,  dream 
a  mightier  dream  of  an  order  directed  by  justice,  invigorated 
by  freedom,  instinct  with  the  higher  happiness  of  individual 
liberty,  self -directed  to  reason  and  cooperation.  "For  what 
avail  the  plough  or  sail,  or  land  or  life  if  freedom  fail?  "  The 
very  weaknesses  of  democratic  government  under  the  cru 
cial  test  of  war  appeal  to  me.  The  tutelage  of  democracy 
breeds  love  of  justice,  the  methods  of  persuasion  and  debate, 
and  a  conception  of  life  which  makes  it  sweet  to  live  and  in 
a  way  destroys  the  temperament  for  war,  until  horror  and 


CAN  DEMOCRACY  BE  ORGANIZED?  1G7 

wrong  and  reversion  to  type  create  anew  the  savage  im 
pulse.  Whatever  way  victory  falls,  democracy  is  destined 
to  stand  its  trial,  and  to  be  submitted  to  a  merciless  cross- 
examination  by  the  mind  and  spirit  of  man.  It  may  and 
will  yield  up  some  of  its  aspirations;  it  will  seize  and  adapt 
some  of  the  weapons  of  its  foes;  it  may  relinquish  some  of  its 
ancient  theories  and  methods ;  it  will  shed  some  of  its  ham 
pering  weaknesses;  but  it  will  still  remain  democracy,  and 
it  is  the  king,  the  autocrat,  and  the  mechanical  State  which 
will  suffer  in  the  end  rather  than  the  common  man  who,  in 
sublime  loyalty  to  race  and  flag,  is  now  reddening  the  soil  of 
Europe  with  his  blood,  or  the  great  principle  which  has 
fascinated  every  generous  thinking  soul  since  freedom  be 
came  the  heritage  of  man. 

The  Germans  are  a  mighty  race,  fecund  in  physical  force 
and  organizing  genius.  Like  the  French  of  1789,  they  are 
now  more  possessed  with  a  group  of  passionate  creative  im 
pulses  than  any  other  nation.  This  grandiose  idealism,  for 
such  it  is,  seems  to  me  reactionary,  but  it  is  held  with  a  sort 
of  thrilling  devotion  and  executed  with  undoubted  genius. 
Nineteen  hundred  and  fourteen  is  for  the  Prussians  a  sort  of 
Prussian  Elizabethan  age,  in  which  vast  dreams  and  ideas 
glow  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of  Teutonic  Raleighs,  Drakes, 
and  Grenvilles,  ready  to  die  for  them.  The  ideal  of  organiza 
tion,  the  thought  of  a  great  whole  uniting  its  members  for 
effective  work  in  building  a  powerful  State,  and  the  welding 
of  a  monstrous  federal  union  of  nations  akin  in  interests  and 
civilizations  possess  the  Germanic  mind.  For  the  German 
the  individual  exists  for  the  State,  and  his  concept  of  the 
State  is  far  more  beautiful  and  spiritual  than  we  Americans 
generally  imagine.  The  State  is  to  be  the  resultant  of  the 
best  thought  and  efforts  of  all  its  units.  They  have  a  glorious 
concept  of  communal  welfare,  but  to  them  parliamentarism 
is  frankly  a  disease  and  suffrage  a  menace.  To  them,  and 


168  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

I  am  quoting  a  notable  German  scholar,  "democracy  is 
a  thing,  infirm  of  purpose,  jealous,  timid,  changeable,  un- 
thorough,  without  foresight,  blundering  along  in  an  age  of 
lucidity  guided  by  confused  instincts."  On  the  whole  Ger 
many  is  probably  better  governed  in  external  forms  than  the 
United  States  or  England.  The  material  conditions  of  her 
people  are  better,  her  cities  cleaner,  her  economies  finer, 
her  social  life  better  administered,  and  her  power  to  achieve 
amazing  results  under  the  fiercest  of  tests  nearly  marvelous. 
The  world  cannot  and  probably  will  not  reject  as  vile  all  this 
German  scholarship,  concentration,  and  scientific  power. 
The  world  may  either  slavishly  imitate  Germany,  or  wisely 
modify  or  set  up  a  contrary  system  overtopping  the  German 
ideal  in  definite  accomplishment,  according  to  the  inclina 
tion  of  the  scales  of  victory.  The  fatality  of  the  German 
Nation  is  that  it  does  not  behold  the  world  as  it  is.  It  beholds 
its  ideals  and  is  logic-driven  to  their  achievement.  It  has 
gone  from  the  sand  wastes  of  Brandenburg  to  world-power 
by  force  and  the  will  to  do,  and  by  force  and  will  it  seeks  its 
will  and  hacks  its  way  through.  It  is  enslaved  by  the  majesty 
of  plan  and  precision  —  the  power  of  concert.  Napoleon, 
"that  ablest  of  historic  men,"  as  Lord  Acton  called  him, 
tried  all  this  once  and  failed.  But  here  it  all  is  again,  with 
its  weapons  of  flame  and  force.  Germany,  apparently,  does 
not  understand  the  fair  doctrine  of  live  and  let  live.  Pride 
sustains  its  soul,  and  ambition  directs  its  energy.  In  spite  of 
all  these  concrete  achievements  Germany  does  not  seem  to 
me  a  progressive  nation,  but  rather  a  Giant  of  Reaction  —  a 
sort  of  mixture,  as  some  one  has  called  it,  of  Ancient  Sparta 
and  Modern  Science.  And  it  is  well  to  hold  in  mind  that  this 
mass-efficiency  is  brought  to  pass  by  subjecting  even  in  the 
minutest  particulars  the  individual  to  the  supreme  authority 
of  the  State.  This  subjection  is  scientific,  well-meant,  but 
very  minute. 


CAN  DEMOCRACY  BE  ORGANIZED?  1C9 

The  flaw  of  democracy  is  that  it  does  understand  and 
sympathize  with  the  soul  of  man,  but  is  so  sympathetic  with 
his  yearning  for  free  self-government  and  self -direction,  so 
opposed  to  force  as  a  moulding  agent,  so  jealous  of  initiative, 
that  it  has  not  yet  found  the  binding  thread  of  social  organi 
zation  by  which  self-government  and  good  government  be 
come  one  and  the  same  thing.  Let  us  confess  that  "  Les 
mceurs  de  la  liberte"  cannot  be  the  manners  of  absolutism. 
Debate,  political  agitation,  bold,  popular  expression,  are 
not  the  methods  of  smooth  precision  and  relentless  order. 
Napoleon  revealed  to  the  world  the  democratic  passion  and 
passed  off  the  stage.  Perhaps  it  is  the  destiny  of  the  Prus 
sian  to  teach  us  administration  and  order  and  to  put  us  in 
the  way  of  finding  and  achieving  it  without  sacrificing  our 
liberties,  and  then  he,  too,  will  pass. 

To  work  out  a  free  democratic,  socialized  life,  wherein 
the  individual  is  not  lost  in  a  metaphysical  super-State,  nor 
sunk  in  inaction  and  selfishness,  by  inducing  desire  for  such 
life,  by  applying  trained  intelligence  to  its  achievement,  and 
by  subjecting  ourselves  to  the  tests  and  disciplines  that  will 
bring  it  to  pass  —  that  is  the  task  of  American  democracy 
and  indeed  of  a  fuller,  deeper  world-wide  democracy.  The 
center  of  gravity  of  the  autocratic  State  is  in  the  State  it 
self,  and  in  such  ideals  as  self-anointed  leaders  suggest. 
The  effect  of  the  democracy  has  been  to  shift  the  center  of 
gravity  too  much  to  the  individual  self  and  his  immediate 
welfare. 

There  must  be  a  golden  mean  somewhere  and  we  must 
find  it.  When  the  great  readjustment  dawns,  when  the 
gaping  wounds  of  war  have  healed,  all  the  world  will  be  seek 
ing  this  golden  mean.  The  social  democrat  of  Germany, 
who  is  silent  now  in  his  splendid  National  devotion,  will  be 
seeking  it;  the  Russian  peasant,  inarticulate,  mystic,  re 
flective;  the  Frenchman  with  his  clear  brain  and  forward- 


170  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

looking  soul;  the  Englishman  wrapped  in  his  great  tradition. 
Perhaps  in  our  untouched  and  undreamed  vigor,  we  shall 
become  the  champions  of  the  great  quest. 

There  would  be  fitness  in  such  a  result.  Here  continental 
democracy  was  born;  here  it  has  grown  great  upon  an  in 
comparable  soil  and  with  enormous  waste.  Let  us  prepare 
for  our  colossal  moral  and  practical  responsibilities  in  the 
world  life,  therefore,  not  alone  by  preparing  common  sense 
establishments  of  force  on  land  and  sea,  until  such  time 
as  human  reason  shall  deem  them  not  needed,  but  by  the 
greater  preparedness  of  self-restraint,  self -analysis,  and  self- 
discipline.  Let  us  not  surrender  our  age-long  dream  of  good, 
just  self-government  to  any  mechanical  ideal  of  quickly  ob 
taining  material  results  erected  into  a  crude  dogma  of  effi 
ciency.  Democracy  must  know  how  to  get  material  results 
economically  and  quickly.  Democracy  must  and  can  be 
organized  to  that  end,  and  this  organization  will  undoubt 
edly  involve  certain  surrenders,  certain  social  and  politi 
cal  self-abnegations  in  the  interests  of  collectivism.  But 
I  hold  the  faith  that  all  this  can  be  done  yet,  retaining 
in  the  family  of  freedom  that  shining  jewel  of  individual 
liberty  which  has  glowed  in  our  life  since  the  beginning. 
The  great  democratic  nations  —  America,  England,  France, 
Switzerland  —  have  before  them,  therefore,  the  problem  of 
retaining  their  standards  of  individual  liberty,  and  yet  con 
triving  juster  and  finer  administrative  organs.  Certainly 
the  people  that  have  built  this  Union  can  learn  how  to 
coordinate  the  activities  of  its  people  and  obtain  results  as 
definite  as  those  obtained  under  systems  of  mere  authority. 

Since  my  college  days  I  have  been  hearing  about  and  ad 
miring  the  German  genius  for  research,  for  adaptation  of 
scientific  truth  and  for  organization.  Now  the  whole  world 
stands  half  astonished  and  half  envious  of  their  creed  of 
efficiency.  In  so  far  as  this  creed  is  opposed  to  slipshodness 


CAN  DEMOCRACY  BE  ORGANIZED?  171 

and  waste,  it  is  altogether  good,  but  the  question  arises,  Is 
the  ability  to  get  things  done  well  deadly  to  liberty,  or  is 
it  consistent  with  personal  liberty?  In  examining  German 
progress,  I  do  not  find  as  many  examples  of  supreme  individ 
ual  efficiency  or  independent  spirit  as  I  find  in  the  demo 
cratic  nations.  The  steam  engine,  the  factory  system,  tele 
graph,  telephone,  wireless,  electric  light,  the  gasoline  engine, 
aeroplane,  machine  gun,  the  submarine,  uses  of  rubber, 
dreadnaught,  the  mighty  names  of  Lister  and  Pasteur,  come 
out  of  the  democratic  nations.  The  distinctive  German  gen 
ius  is  for  administration  and  adaptation,  rather  than  for 
independent  creation.  His  civil  service  is  the  finest  in  the 
world.  He  knows  what  he  wants.  He  decides  what  training 
is  necessary  to  get  that  result.  He  universalizes  that  training. 
He  enforces  obedience  to  its  discipline.  A  man  must  have 
skill;  he  must  obey;  he  must  work;  he  must  cooperate.  The 
freer  nations  desire  the  same  results,  but  neglect  to  enforce 
their  realization.  Their  theory  of  government  forces  them 
to  plead  for  its  attainment.  Certain  classes  and  individuals 
heed  this  persuasion,  and  in  an  atmosphere  of  precious  free 
dom  great  personalities  spring  into  being.  In  the  conflict 
between  achievement  based  on  subjection  and  splendid 
obedience,  and  that  based  on  political  freedom,  my  belief  is 
that  the  system  of  political  and  social  freedom  will  trium 
phantly  endure.  In  essence,  it  is  the  conflict  between  the  effi 
ciency  of  adaptation  and  organization  and  the  efficiency  of 
invention  and  creation.  What  autocracy  needs  is  the  thrill 
and  push  of  individual  liberty,  and  the  continental  peasant 
will  get  it  as  the  result  of  this  war,  for  the  guns  of  autocracy 
are  celebrating  the  downfall  of  autocracy,  even  in  its  most 
ancient  fastness  —  Russia.  These  autocracies  will  realize 
their  real  greatness  when  they  substitute  humility  for  pride, 
freedom  for  accomplishment,  as  compelling  national  mo 
tives.  What  democracy  needs  is  the  discipline  of  patient 


172  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

labor,  of  trained  skill,  of  thoroughness  in  work,  and  a  more 
socialized  conception  of  public  duty.  As  President  Eliot  has 
pointed  out,  the  German  theory  of  social  organization  is 
very  young,  and  her  literature,  philosophy,  and  art  are  fairly 
new.  It  is  a  bit  premature  to  concede  the  supreme  validity 
of  her  Kultur  and  of  her  political  organization  until  she  can 
point  to  such  names  as  Dante  and  Angelo,  Shakespeare  and 
Milton,  Newton  and  Darwin  and  Pasteur,  and  until  such 
names  appear  in  her  political  history  as  Washington  and 
Jefferson  and  Burke.  This  is  not  meant  to  deny  the  sur 
passing  greatness  of  her  music  and  her  philosophy,  nor  to 
minimize  the  glory  of  her  Goethes  or  Schillers  or  Lessings  or 
Steins,  but  to  suggest  that  she  has  not  yet  reached  the  super 
lative.  It  is  not  yet  quite  sure  that  with  all  their  genius  for 
organization  and  efficiency,  they  may  not  be  self-directed  to 
ruin.  Certainly  the  German  has  as  much  to  learn  from  the 
freer  nations  as  we  have  to  learn  from  the  Teutonic  genius. 
Switzerland  has  organized  her  democracy  and  kept  her  per 
sonal  liberty,  and  there  is  no  finer  spectacle  on  earth  to 
day  than  the  spectacle  of  France,  seed-sowing,  torch-bearing 
France;  France,  that  has  touched  the  heights  and  sounded 
the  depths  of  human  experience  and  national  tragedy;  "La 
belle  France"  that  has  substituted  duty  for  glory  as  a  na 
tional  motive,  and  has  kept  her  soul  free  in  the  valley  of 
humiliation;  grim,  patient,  silent,  far-seeing  France,  clinging 
to  her  republican  ideals  and  reorganizing  her  life  from  hovel 
to  palace  in  the  very  impact  of  conflict  and  death,  so  that  it 
is  enabled  to  present  to  the  world  the  finest  example  of  or 
ganized  efficiency  and  military  glory  that  the  world  has  seen 
in  some  generations.  In  order  to  organize  an  autocracy,  the 
rulers  ordain  that  it  shall  get  in  order  and  provide  the  means 
to  bring  about  that  end.  To  organize  a  democracy,  we  must 
organize  its  soul,  and  give  it  power  to  create  its  own  ideals. 
It  is  primarily  a  peace  organization,  and  that  is  proof  that 


CAN  DEMOCRACY  BE  ORGANIZED?  173 

it  is  the  forward  movement  of  the  human  soul  and  not  the 
movement  of  scientific  reaction.  It  is  through  a  severe  men 
tal  training  in  our  schools  and  a  return  to  the  conception 
of  public  duty  which  guided  the  sword  and  uplifted  the  heart 
of  the  Founder  of  the  Republic  that  we  shall  find  strength 
to  organize  the  democracy  of  the  future,  revolutionized  by 
science  and  by  urban  life.1  The  right  to  vote  implies  the  duty 
to  vote  right;  the  right  to  legislate,  the  duty  to  legislate 
justly;  the  right  to  judge  about  foreign  policy,  the  duty  to 
fight  if  necessary;  the  right  to  come  to  college,  the  duty  to 
carry  one's  self  handsomely  at  college.  ] Our  youth  must  be 
taught  to  use  their  senses,  to  reason  simply  and  correctly, 
from  exact  knowledge  thus  brought  to  them  to  attain  to 
sincerity  in  thought  and  judgment  through  work  and  pa 
tience.  In  our  home  and  civic  life,  we  need  some  moral  equiv 
alent  for  the  training  which  somehow  issues  out  of  war  —  the 
glory  of  self-sacrifice,  obedience  to  just  authority,  contempt 
of  ease,  and  a  realization  that  through  thoughtful,  collective 
effort  great  results  will  be  obtained.  A  great  spiritual  glory 
will  come  to  these  European  nations  through  their  sorrow 
and  striving,  which  will  express  itself  in  great  poems  and 
great  literature.  They  are  preparing  new  shrines  at  which 
mankind  will  worship.  Let  us  take  care  that  prosperity  is 
not  our  sole  national  endowment.  War  asks  of  men  self- 
denials  and  sacrifice  for  ideals.  Peace  must  somehow  do  the 
same.  Autocracy  orders  men  to  forget  self  for  an  over-self 
called  the  State;  Democracy  must  inspire  men  to  forget  self 
for  a  still  higher  thing  called  Humanity/ 

There  stands  upon  the  steps  of  the  Sub-Treasury  build 
ing,  in  Wall  Street,  the  bronze  figure  of  an  old  Virginia 
country  gentleman  looking  out  with  his  honest  eyes  upon 
that  sea  of  hurrying,  gain-getting  men.  This  statue  is  a 
remarkable  allegory,  for  in  his  grave,  thoughtful  person, 
Washington  embodies  that  form  of  public  spirit,  that  bal- 


174  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

ance  of  character,  that  union  of  force  and  justice  that  re 
defines  democracy.  Out  of  his  lips  seems  to  issue  the  great 
creed  which  is  the  core  of  democratic  society,  and  around 
which  this  finer  organization  shall  be  solidly  built.  Power 
rests  on  fitness  to  rule.  Fitness  to  rule  rests  on  trained  minds 
and  spirits.  You  can  trust  men  if  you  will  train  them.  The 
object  of  power  is  the  public  good.  The  ultimate  judgment 
of  mankind  in  the  mass  is  a  fairly  good  judgment. 


CONSCRIPTION  PROCLAMATION^ 
WOODROW  WILSON 

WHEREAS  Congress  has  enacted  and  the  President  has, 
on  the  eighteenth  day  of  May,  one  thousand  nine  hundred 
and  seventeen,  approved  a  law  which  contains  the  following 
provisions :  — 

Section  5.  That  all  male  persons  between  the  ages  of  twenty-one 
and  thirty,  both  inclusive,  shall  be  subject  to  registration  in  ac 
cordance  with  regulations  to  be  prescribed  by  the  President,  etc. 

Now,  therefore,  I,  WOODROW  WILSON,  President  of  the 
United  States,  do  call  upon  the  governor  of  each  of  the  sev 
eral  States  and  Territories,  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of 
the  District  of  Columbia,  and  all  officers  and  agents  of  the 
several  States  and  Territories,  of  the  District  of  Columbia, 
and  of  the  counties  and  municipalities  therein,  to  perform 
certain  duties  in  the  execution  of  the  foregoing  law,  which 
duties  will  be  communicated  to  them  directly  in  regulations 
of  even  date  herewith.  .  .  . 

The  power  against  which  we  are  arrayed  has  sought  to 
impose  its  will  upon  the  world  by  force.  To  this  end  it  has 
increased  armament  until  it  has  changed  the  face  of  war.  In 
the  sense  in  which  we  have  been  wont  to  think  of  armies  there 
are  no  armies  in  this  struggle.  There  are  entire  nations 
armed.  Thus,  the  men  who  remain  to  till  the  soil  and  man 
the  factories  are  no  less  a  part  of  the  army  that  is  France 
than  the  men  beneath  the  battle  flags.  It  must  be  so  with  us. 

1  "  Done  at  the  city  of  Washington,  this  eighteenth  day  of  May,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  seventeen  and  of  the  independ 
ence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  the  one  hundred  and  forty-first." 


176  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

It  is  not  an  army  that  we  must  shape  and  train  for  war;  it 
is  a  nation.  To  this  end  our  people  must  draw  close  in  one 
compact  front  against  a  common  foe.  But  this  cannot  be  if 
each  man  pursues  a  private  purpose.  All  must  pursue  one 
purpose.  The  nation  needs  all  men;  but  it  needs  each  man, 
not  in  the  field  that  will  most  pleasure  him,  but  in  the  en 
deavor  that  will  best  serve  the  common  good.  Thus,  though 
a  sharpshooter  pleases  to  operate  a  trip-hammer  for  the 
forging  of  great  guns,  and  an  expert  machinist  desires  to 
march  with  the  flag,  the  Nation  is  being  served  only  when 
the  sharpshooter  marches  and  the  machinist  remains  at  his 
levers.  The  whole  Nation  must  be  a  team  in  which  each 
man  shall  play  the  part  for  which  he  is  best  fitted.  To  this 
end,  Congress  has  provided  that  the  Nation  shall  be  organ 
ized  for  war  by  selection  and  that  each  man  shall  be  classi 
fied  for  service  in  the  place  to  which  it  shall  best  serve  the 
general  good  to  call  him. 

The  significance  of  this  cannot  be  overstated.  It  is  a  new 
thing  in  our  history  and  a  landmark  in  our  progress.  It  is  a 
new  manner  of  accepting  and  vitalizing  our  duty  to  give 
ourselves  with  thoughtful  devotion  to  the  common  purpose 
of  us  all.  It  is  in  no  sense  a  conscription  of  the  unwilling;  it 
is,  rather,  selection  from  a  nation  which  has  volunteered  in 
mass.  It  is  no  more  a  choosing  of  those  who  shall  march 
with  the  colors  than  it  is  a  selection  of  those  who  shall  serve 
an  equally  necessary  and  devoted  purpose  in  the  industries 
that  lie  behind  the  battle  line. 

The  day  here  named  is  the  time  upon  which  all  shall  pre 
sent  themselves  for  assignment  to  their  tasks.  It  is  for  that 
reason  destined  to  be  remembered  as  one  of  the  most  con 
spicuous  moments  in  our  history.  It  is  nothing  less  than  the 
day  upon  which  the  manhood  of  the  country  shall  step  forward 
in  one  solid  rank  in  defense  of  the  ideals  to  which  this  Nation 
is  consecrated.  It  is  important  to  those  ideals  no  less  than 


CONSCRIPTION  PROCLAMATION  177 

to  the  pride  of  this  generation  in  manifesting  its  devotion  to 
them,  that  there  be  no  gaps  in  the  ranks. 

It  is  essential  that  the  day  be  approached  in  thoughtful 
apprehension  of  its  significance  and  that  we  accord  to  it  the 
honor  and  the  meaning  that  it  deserves.  Our  industrial  need 
prescribes  that  it  be  not  made  a  technical  holiday,  but  the 
stern  sacrifice  that  is  before  us  urges  that  it  be  carried  in  all 
our  hearts  as  a  great  day  of  patriotic  devotion  and  obliga 
tion  when  the  duty  shall  lie  upon  every  man,  whether  he  is 
himself  to  be  registered  or  not,  to  see  to  it  that  the  name  of 
every  male  person  of  the  designated  ages  is  written  on  these 
lists  of  honor. 


AMERICANISM  AND  THE  FOREIGN-BORN  * 
WOODROW  WILSON 

IT  warms  my  heart  that  you  should  give  me  such  a  re 
ception,  but  it  is  not  of  myself  that  I  wish  to  think  to-night, 
but  of  those  who  have  just  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  This  is  the  only  country  in  the  world  which  experi 
ences  this  constant  and  repeated  rebirth.  Other  countries 
depend  upon  the  multiplication  of  their  own  native  people. 
This  country  is  constantly  drinking  strength  out  of  new 
sources  by  the  voluntary  association  with  it  of  great  bodies 
of  strong  men  and  forward-looking  women.  And  so  by  the 
gift  of  the  free  will  of  independent  people  it  is  constantly 
being  renewed  from  generation  to  generation  by  the  same 
process  by  which  it  was  originally  created.  It  is  as  if  hu 
manity  had  determined  to  see  to  it  that  this  great  nation, 
founded  for  the  benefit  of  humanity,  should  not  lack  for  the 
allegiance  of  the  people  of  the  world. 

You  have  just  taken  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United 
States.  Of  allegiance  to  whom?  Of  allegiance  to  no  one,  un 
less  it  be  God.  Certainly  not  of  allegiance  to  those  who  tem 
porarily  represent  this  great  Government.  You  have  taken  an 
oath  of  allegiance  to  a  great  ideal,  to  a  great  body  of  prin 
ciples,  to  a  great  hope  of  the  human  race.  You  have  said, 
"We  are  going  to  America,"  not  only  to  earn  a  living,  not 
only  to  seek  the  things  which  it  was  more  difficult  to  obtain 
where  you  were  born,  but  to  help  forward  the  great  enter 
prises  of  the  human  spirit  —  to  let  man  know  that  every- 

1  Delivered  May  10,  1915,  in  Philadelphia,  before  an  audience  of  natu 
ralized  Americans. 


AMERICANISM  AND  THE  FOREIGN-BORN     179 

where  in  the  world  there  are  men  who  will  cross  strange 
oceans  and  go  where  a  speech  is  spoken  which  is  alien  to 
them,  knowing  that,  whatever  the  speech,  there  is  but  one 
longing  and  utterance  of  the  human  heart,  and  that  is  for 
liberty  and  justice. 

And  while  you  bring  all  countries  with  you,  you  come  with 
a  purpose  of  leaving  all  other  countries  behind  you  —  bring 
ing  what  is  best  of  their  spirit,  but  not  looking  over  your 
shoulders  and  seeking  to  perpetuate  what  you  intended  to 
leave  in  them.  I  certainly  would  not  be  one  even  to  suggest 
that  a  man  ceases  to  love  the  home  of  his  birth  and  the  na 
tion  of  his  origin — these  things  are  very  sacred  and  ought 
not  to  be  put  out  of  our  hearts  —  butm*  is  one  thing  to  love 
the  place  where  you  were  born  and  it  is  another  thing  to 
dedicate  yourself  to  the  place  to  which  you  go.  You  cannot 
dedicate  yourself  to  America  unless  you  become  in  every 
respect  and  with  every  purpose  of  your  will  thorough  Ameri 
cans.  You  cannot  become  thorough  Americans  if  you  think 
of  yourselves  in  groups.  America  does  not  consist  of  groups. 
A  man  who  thinks  of  himself  as  belonging  to  a  particular 
national  group  in  America,  has  not  yet  become  an  Ameri 
can,  and  the  man  who  goes  among  you  to  trade  upon  your 
nationality  is  no  worthy  son  to  live  under  the  Stars  and 
Stripes. 

My  urgent  advice  to  you  would  be  not  only  always  to  think 
first  of  America,  but  always,  also,  to  think  first  of  humanity. 
You  do  not  love  humanity  if  you  seek  to  divide  humanity 
into  jealous  camps.  Humanity  can  be  welded  together  only 
by  love,  by  sympathy,  by  justice,  not  by  jealousy  and  ha 
tred.  I  am  sorry  for  the  man  who  seeks  to  make  personal 
capital  out  of  the  passions  of  his  fellow  men.  He  has  lost  the 
touch  and  ideal  of  America,  for  America  was  created  to  unite 
mankind  by  those  passions  which  lift  and  not  by  the  pas 
sions  which  separate  and  debase.  * 


180  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

We  came  to  America,  either  ourselves  or  in  the  persons  of 
our  ancestors,  to  better  the  ideals  of  men,  to  make  them  see 
finer  things  than  they  had  seen  before,  to  get  rid  of  things 
that  divide,  and  to  make  sure  of  the  things  that  unite.  It 
was  but  an  historical  accident  no  doubt  that  this  great 
country  was  called  the  "United  States,"  and  yet  I  am  very 
thankful  that  it  has  the  word  "united"  in  its  title;  and  the 
man  who  seeks  to  divide  man  from  man,  group  from  group, 
interest  from  interest,  in  the  United  States  is  striking  at  its 
very  heart. 

It  is  a  very  interesting  circumstance  to  me,  in  thinking  of 
those  of  you  who  have  just  sworn  allegiance  to  this  great 
Government,  that  you  were  drawn  across  the  ocean  by  some 
beckoning  finger  of  hope,  by  some  belief,  by  some  vision  of  a 
new  kind  of  justice,  by  some  expectation  of  a  better  kind  of 
life. 

No  doubt  you  have  been  disappointed  in  some  of  us;  some 
of  us  are  very  disappointing.  No  doubt  you  have  found  that 
justice  in  the  United  States  goes  only  with  a  pure  heart  and 
a  right  purpose,  as  it  does  everywhere  else  in  the  world.  No 
doubt  what  you  found  here  did  n't  seem  touched  for  you, 
after  all,  with  the  complete  beauty  of  the  ideal  which  you 
had  conceived  beforehand. 

But  remember  this,  if  we  had  grown  at  all  poor  in  the 
ideal,  you  brought  some  of  it  with  you.  A  man  does  not  go 
out  to  seek  the  thing  that  is  not  in  him.  A  man  does  not 
hope  for  the  thing  that  he  does  not  believe  in;  and  if  some 
of  us  have  forgotten  what  America  believed  in,  you,  at  any 
rate,  imported  in  your  own  hearts  a  renewal  of  the  belief. 
That  is  the  reason  that  I,  for  one,  make  you  welcome. 

If  I  have  in  any  degree  forgotten  what  America  was  in 
tended  for,  I  will  thank  God  if  you  will  remind  me. 

I  was  born  in  America.  You  dreamed  dreams  of  what 
America  was  to  be,  and  I  hope  you  brought  the  dreams  with 


AMERICANISM  AND  THE  FOREIGN-BORN     181 

you.  No  man  that  does  not  see  visions  will  ever  realize  any 
high  hope  or  undertake  any  high  enterprise. 

Just  because  you  brought  dreams  with  you,  America  is 
more  likely  to  realize  the  dreams  such  as  you  brought.  You 
are  enriching  us  if  you  came  expecting  us  to  be  better  than 
we  are. 

See,  my  friends,  what  that  means.  It  means  that  America 
must  have  a  consciousness  different  from  the  consciousness  of 
every  other  nation  in  the  world.  I  am  not  saying  this  with 
even  the  slightest  thought  of  criticism  of  other  nations.  You 
know  how  it  is  with  a  family.  A  family  gets  centered  on  it 
self  if  it  is  not  careful  and  is  less  interested  in  the  neighbors 
than  it  is  in  its  own  members. 

So  a  nation  that  is  not  constantly  renewed  out  of  new 
sources  is  apt  to  have  the  narrowness  and  prejudice  of  a 
family.  Whereas,  America  must  have  this  consciousness, 
that  on  all  sides  it  touches  elbows  and  touches  hearts  with 
all  the  nations  of  mankind. 

The  example  of  America  must  be  a  special  example.  The 
example  of  America  must  be  the  example  not  merely  of 
peace  because  it  will  not  fight,  but  of  peace  because  peace 
is  the  healing  and  elevating  influence  of  the  world  and  strife 
is  not. 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  man  being  too  proud  to  fight. 
There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  nation  being  so  right  that  it  does 
not  need  to  convince  others  by  force  that  it  is  right. 

So,  if  you  come  into  this  great  nation  as  you  have  come, 
voluntarily  seeking  something  that  we  have  to  give,  all  that 
we  have  to  give  is  this :  We  cannot  exempt  you  from  work. 
No  man  is  exempt  from  work  anywhere  in  the  world.  I  some 
times  think  he  is  fortunate  if  he  has  to  work  only  with  his 
hands  and  not  with  his  head.  It  is  very  easy  to  do  what 
other  people  give  you  to  do,  but  it  is  very  difficult  to  give 
other  people  things  to  do.  We  cannot  exempt  you  from 


182  AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY 

work;  we  cannot  exempt  you  from  the  strife  and  the  heart 
breaking  burden  of  the  struggle  of  the  day  —  that  is  com 
mon  to  mankind  everywhere.  We  cannot  exempt  you  from 
the  loads  you  must  carry;  we  can  only  make  them  light  by  the 
spirit  in  which  they  are  carried.  That  is  the  spirit  of  hope, 
it  is  the  spirit  of  liberty,  it  is  the  spirit  of  justice. 

When  I  was  asked,  therefore,  by  the  Mayor  and  the  com 
mittee  that  accompanied  him  to  come  up  from  Washington 
to  meet  this  great  company  of  newly  admitted  citizens  I 
could  not  decline  the  invitation.  I  ought  not  to  be  away 
from  Washington,  and  yet  I  feel  that  it  has  renewed  my 
spirit  as  an  American. 

In  Washington  men  tell  you  so  many  things  every  day 
that  are  not  so,  and  I  like  to  come  and  stand  in  the  presence 
of  a  great  body  of  my  fellow-citizens,  whether  they  have  been 
my  fellow-citizens  a  long  time  or  a  short  time,  and  drink, 
as  it  were,  out  of  the  common  fountains  with  them  and  go 
back  feeling  that  you  have  so  generously  given  me  the  sense 
of  your  support  and  of  the  living  vitality  in  your  hearts,  of 
its  great  ideals  which  made  America  the  hope  of  the  world. 


IV 

AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 


COUNSEL  ON  ALLIANCES^ 
GEORGE  WASHINGTON 

OBSERVE  good  faith  and  justice  toward  all  nations;  culti 
vate  peace  and  harmony  with  all.  Religion  and  morality 
enjoin  this  conduct;  and  can  it  be,  that  good  policy  does  not 
equally  enjoin  it?  It  will  be  worthy  of  a  free,  enlightened, 
and,  at  no  distant  period,  a  great  nation,  to  give  to  mankind 
the  magnanimous  and  too  novel  example  of  a  people  always 
guided  by  an  exalted  justice  and  benevolence.  Who  can 
doubt  that,  in  the  course  of  time  and  things,  the  fruits  of 
such  a  plan  would  richly  repay  any  temporary  advantages 
which  might  be  lost  by  a  steady  adherence  to  it?  Can  it  be, 
that  Providence  has  not  connected  the  permanent  felicity 
of  a  nation  with  its  virtue?  The  experiment,  at  least,  is  rec 
ommended  by  every  sentiment  which  ennobles  human  na 
ture.  Alas!  is  it  rendered  impossible  by  its  vices? 

In  the  execution  of  such  a  plan,  nothing  is  more  essential 
than  that  permanent,  inveterate  antipathies  against  particu 
lar  nations,  and  passionate  attachments  for  others,  should 
be  excluded;  and  that,  in  place  of  them,  just  and  amicable 
feelings  towards  all  should  be  cultivated.  The  nation  which 
indulges  towards  another  an  habitual  hatred,  or  an  habitual 
fondness,  is  in  some  degree  a  slave.  It  is  a  slave  to  its  ani 
mosity  or  to  its  affection,  either  of  which  is  sufficient  to  lead 
it  astray  from  its  duty  and  its  interest.  Antipathy  in  one 

1  From  the  "Farewell  Address,"  September,  1796.  The  address  was  prob 
ably  written  by  Hamilton  and  Madison.  The  familiar  phrase  "entangling 
alliances,"  popularly  attributed  to  Washington,  is  to  be  found  in  Jefferson's 
"First  Inaugural  Address"  (see  p.  59  of  the  present  volume). 


186  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

nation  against  another  disposes  each  more  readily  to  offer  in 
sult  and  injury,  to  lay  hold  of  slight  causes  of  umbrage,  and 
to  be  haughty  and  intractable  when  accidental  or  trifling 
occasions  of  dispute  occur.  Hence  frequent  collisions,  ob 
stinate,  envenomed,  and  bloody  contests.  The  nation, 
prompted  by  ill-will  and  resentment,  sometimes  impels  to 
war  the  government,  contrary  to  the  best  calculations  of 
policy.  The  government  sometimes  participates  in  the  na 
tional  propensity,  and  adopts  through  passion  what  reason 
would  reject;  at  other  times,  it  makes  the  animosity  of  the 
nation  subservient  to  projects  of  hostility  instigated  by 
pride,  ambition,  and  other  sinister  and  pernicious  motives. 
The  peace  often,  sometimes  perhaps  the  liberty,  of  nations 
has  been  the  victim. 

So  likewise,  a  passionate  attachment  of  one  nation  for 
another  produces  a  variety  of  evils.  Sympathy  for  the  fa 
vorite  nation  facilitating  the  illusion  of  an  imaginary  com 
mon  interest,  in  cases  where  no  real  common  interest  exists, 
and  infusing  into  one  the  enmities  of  the  other,  betrays  the 
former  into  a  participation  in  the  quarrels  and  wars  of  the 
latter,  without  adequate  inducement  or  justification.  It 
leads  also  to  concessions  to  the  favorite  nation  of  privileges 
denied  to  others,  which  is  apt  doubly  to  injure  the  nation 
making  the  concessions :  by  unnecessarily  parting  with  what 
ought  to  have  been  retained;  and  by  exciting  jealousy,  ill- 
will,  and  a  disposition  to  retaliate,  in  the  parties  from  whom 
equal  privileges  are  withheld.  And  it  gives  to  ambitious, 
corrupted  or  deluded  citizens  (who  devote  themselves  to  the 
favorite  nation),  facility  to  betray  or  sacrifice  the  interests 
of  their  own  country,  without  odium,  sometimes  even  with 
popularity;  gilding,  with  the  appearances  of  a  virtuous 
sense  of  obligation,  a  commendable  deference  for  public 
opinion,  or  a  laudable  zeal  for  public  good,  the  base  of  foolish 
compliances  of  ambition,  corruption,  or  infatuation. 


COUNSEL  ON  ALLIANCES  187 

As  avenues  to  foreign  influence  in  innumerable  ways,  such 
attachments  are  particularly  alarming  to  the  truly  enlight 
ened  and  independent  patriot.  How  many  opportunities 
do  they  afford  to  tamper  with  domestic  factions,  to  prac 
tise  the  arts  of  seduction,  to  mislead  public  opinion,  to  in 
fluence  or  awe  the  public  councils.  Such  an  attachment  of 
a  small  or  weak,  towards  a  great  and  powerful  nation,  dooms 
the  former  to  be  the  satellite  of  the  latter. 

Against  the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence  (I  conjure 
you  to  believe  me,  fellow-citizens),  the  jealousy  of  a  free 
people  ought  to  be  constantly  awake;  since  history  and  ex 
perience  prove  that  foreign  influence  is  one  of  the  most 
baneful  foes  of  republican  government.  But  that  jealousy, 
to  be  useful,  must  be  impartial;  else  it  becomes  the  instru 
ment  of  the  very  influence  to  be  avoided,  instead  of  a  de 
fence  against  it.  Excessive  partiality  for  one  foreign  nation, 
and  excessive  dislike  of  another,  cause  those  whom  they 
actuate  to  see  danger  only  on  one  side,  and  serve  to  veil  and 
even  second  the  arts  of  influence  on  the  other.  Real  patriots, 
who  may  resist  the  intrigues  of  the  favorite,  are  liable  to  be 
come  suspected  and  odious;  while  its  tools  and  dupes  usurp 
the  applause  and  confidence  of  the  people,  to  surrender  their 
interests. 

The  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us,  in  regard  to  foreign  na 
tions,  is,  in  extending  our  commercial  relations,  to  have  with 
them  as  little  political  connection  as  possible.  So  far  as  we 
have  already  formed  engagements,  let  them  be  fulfilled 
with  perfect  good  faith.  Here  let  us  stop. 

Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  interests  which  to  us  have 
none,  or  a  very  remote  relation.  Hence  she  must  be  en 
gaged  in  frequent  controversies,  the  causes  of  which  are 
essentially  foreign  to  our  concerns.  Hence,  therefore,  it 
must  be  unwise  in  us  to  implicate  ourselves,  by  artificial 
ties,  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  her  politics,  or  the 


188  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

ordinary  combinations  and  collisions  of  her  friendships  or 
enmities. 

Our  detached  and  distant  situation  invites  and  enables  us 
to  pursue  a  different  course.  If  we  remain  one  people,  under 
an  efficient  government,  the  period  is  not  far  off,  when  we 
may  defy  material  injury  from  external  annoyance;  when 
we  may  take  such  an  attitude  as  will  cause  the  neutrality  we 
may  at  any  time  resolve  upon,  to  be  scrupulously  respected; 
when  belligerent  nations,  under  the  impossibility  of  making 
acquisitions  upon  us,  will  not  lightly  hazard  the  giving  us 
provocation;  when  we  may  choose  peace  or  war,  as  our  in 
terest,  guided  by  justice,  shall  counsel. 

Why  forego  the  advantages  of  so  peculiar  a  situation? 
Why  quit  our  own  to  stand  upon  foreign  ground?  Why,  by 
interweaving  our  destiny  with  that  of  any  part  of  Europe, 
entangle  our  peace  and  prosperity  in  the  toils  of  European 
ambition,  rivalship,  interest,  humor,  or  caprice? 

It  is  our  true  policy  to  steer  clear  of  permanent  alliances 
with  any  portion  of  the  foreign  world;  so  far,  I  mean,  as  we 
are  now  at  liberty  to  do  it;  for  let  me  not  be  understood  as 
capable  of  patronizing  infidelity  to  existing  engagements.  I 
hold  the  maxim  no  less  applicable  to  public  than  to  private 
affairs,  that  honesty  is  always  the  best  policy.  I  repeat  it, 
therefore,  let  those  engagements  be  observed  in  their  gen 
uine  sense.  But,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  unnecessary  and  would 
be  unwise  to  extend  them. 

Taking  care  always  to  keep  ourselves,  by  suitable  estab 
lishments,  on  a  respectable  defensive  posture,  we  may  safely 
trust  to  temporary  alliances  for  extraordinary  emergencies. 

Harmony,  liberal  intercourse  with  all  nations,  are  recom 
mended  by  policy,  humanity,  and  interest.  But  even  our 
commercial  policy  should  hold  an  equal  and  impartial  hand: 
neither  seeking  nor  granting  exclusive  favors  or  preferences; 
consulting  the  natural  course  of  things ;  diffusing  and  diver- 


COUNSEL  ON  ALLIANCES  189 

sifying  by  gentle  means  the  streams  of  commerce,  but  forc 
ing  nothing;  establishing,  with  powers  so  disposed,  in  order 
to  give  trade  a  stable  course,  to  define  the  rights  of  our  mer 
chants,  and  to  enable  the  government  to  support  them,  con 
ventional  rules  of  intercourse,  the  best  that  present  circum 
stances  and  mutual  opinion  will  permit,  but  temporary,  and 
liable  to  be  from  time  to  time  abandoned  or  varied,  as  ex 
perience  and  circumstances  shall  dictate;  constantly  keep 
ing  in  view,  that  it  is  folly  in  one  nation  to  look  for  disinter 
ested  favors  from  another;  that  it  must  pay  with  a  portion 
of  its  independence  for  whatever  it  may  accept  under  that 
character;  that,  by  such  acceptance,  it  may  place  itself  in  the 
condition  of  having  given  equivalents  for  nominal  favors, 
and  yet  of  being  reproached  with  ingratitude  for  not  giving 
moi;e.  There  can  be  no  greater  error  than  to  expect  or  calcu 
late  upon  real  favors  from  nation  to  nation.  It  is  an  illu 
sion,  which  experience  must  cure,  which  a  just  pride  ought 
to  discard. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  * 
JAMES  MONROE 

AT  the  proposal  of  the  Russian  Imperial  Government, 
made  through  the  minister  of  the  Emperor  residing  here,  a 
full  power  and  instructions  have  been  transmitted  to  the 
minister  of  the  United  States  at  St.  Petersburg  to  arrange 
by  amicable  negotiation  the  respective  rights  and  interests 
of  the  two  nations  on  the  northwest  coast  of  this  continent. 
A  similar  proposal  had  been  made  by  His  Imperial  Majesty 
to  the  Government  of  Great  Britain,  which  has  likewise  been 
acceded  to.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  been 
desirous  by  this  friendly  proceeding  of  manifesting  the  great 
value  which  they  have  invariably  attached  to  the  friend 
ship  of  the  Emperor  and  their  solicitude  to  cultivate  the 
best  understanding  with  his  Government.  In  the  discussions 
to  which  this  interest  has  given  rise  and  in  the  arrangements 
by  which  they  may  terminate  the  occasion  has  been  judged 
proper  for  asserting,  as  a  principle  in  which  the  rights  and 
interests  of  the  United  States  are  involved,  that  the  Ameri 
can  continents,  by  the  free  and  independent  condition  which 
they  have  assumed  and  maintain,  are  henceforth  not  to  be 
considered  as  subjects  for  future  colonization  by  any  Eu 
ropean  powers.  .  .  . 

It  was  stated  at  the  commencement  of  the  last  session 
that  a  great  effort  was  then  making  in  Spain  and  Portugal 
to  improve  the  condition  of  the  people  of  those  countries, 
and  that  it  appeared  to  be  conducted  with  extraordinary 

1  From  the  Message  of  December  2,  1823,  outlining  the  Monroe  Doc 
trine'. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  191 

moderation.  It  need  scarcely  be  remarked  that  the  result 
has  been  so  far  very  different  from  what  was  then  antici 
pated.  Of  events  in  that  quarter  of  the  globe,  with  which 
we  have  so  much  intercourse  and  from  which  we  derive  our 
origin,  we  have  always  been  anxious  and  interested  specta 
tors.  The  citizens  of  the  United  States  cherish  sentiments 
the  most  friendly  in  favor  of  the  liberty  and  happiness  of 
their  fellow-men  on  that  side  of  the  Atlantic.  In  the  wars  of 
the  European  powers  in  matters  relating  to  themselves  we 
have  never  taken  any  part,  nor  does  it  comport  with  our 
policy  so  to  do./lt  is  only  when  our  rights  are  invaded  or 
seriously  menaced  that  we  resent  injuries  or  make  prepara 
tion  for  our  defense.  >With  the  movements  in  this  hemi 
sphere  we  are  of  necessity  more  immediately  connected,  and 
by  causes  which  must  be  obvious  to  all  enlightened  and  im 
partial  observers.  The  political  system  of  the  allied  powers 
is  essentially  different  in  this  respect  from  that  of  America. 
This  difference  proceeds  from  that  which  exists  in  their  re 
spective  Governments;  and  to  the  defense  of  our  own,  which 
has  been  achieved  by  the  loss  of  so  much  blood  and  treasure, 
and  matured  by  the  wisdom  of  their  most  enlightened  citi 
zens,  and  under  which  we  have  enjoyed  unexampled  felicity, 
this  whole  nation  is  devoted.  We  owe  it,  therefore,  to  can 
dor  and  the  amicable  relations  existing  between  the  United 
States  and  those  powers  to  declare  that  we  should  consider 
any  attempt  on  their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  por 
tion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety. 
With  the  existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of  any  European 
power  we  have  not  interfered  and  shall  not  interfere.  But 
with  the  Governments  who  have  declared  their  independ 
ence  and  maintained  it,  and  whose  independence  we  have, 
on  great  consideration  and  on  just  principles,  acknowledged, 
we  could  not  view  any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of 
oppressing  them,  or  controlling  in  any  other  manner  their 


192  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

destiny,  by  any  European  power,  in  any  other  light  than  as 
the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  toward  the 
United  States.  In  the  war  between  those  new  Governments 
and  Spain  we  declared  our  neutrality  at  the  time  of  their 
recognition,  and  to  this  we  have  adhered,  and  shall  continue 
to  adhere,  provided  no  change  shall  occur  which,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  competent  authorities  of  this  Government, 
shall  make  a  corresponding  change  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  indispensable  to  their  security. 

The  late  events  in  Spain  and  Portugal  show  that  Europe 
is  still  unsettled.  Of  this  important  fact  no  stronger  proof 
can  be  adduced  than  that  the  allied  powers  should  have 
thought  it  proper,  on  any  principle  satisfactory  to  them 
selves,  to  have  interposed  by  force  in  the  internal  concerns 
of  Spain.  To  what  extent  such  interposition  may  be  carried, 
on  the  same  principle,  is  a  question  in  which  all  independent 
powers  whose  governments  differ  from  theirs  are  interested, 
even  those  most  remote,  and  surely  none  more  so  than  the 
United  States.  Our  policy  in  regard  to  Europe,  which  was 
adopted  at  an  early  stage  of  the  wars  which  have  so  long 
agitated  that  quarter  of  the  globe,  nevertheless  remains  the 
same,  which  is,  not  to  interfere  in  the  internal  concerns  of 
any  of  its  powers;  to  consider  the  government  de  facto  as  the 
legitimate  government  for  us;  to  cultivate  friendly  relations 
with  it,  and  to  preserve  those  relations  by  a  frank,  firm,  and 
manly  policy,  meeting  in  all  instances  the  just  claims  of  every 
power,  submitting  to  injuries  from  none.  But  in  regard  to 
those  continents  circumstances  are  eminently  and  conspicu 
ously  different.  It  is  impossible  that  the  allied  powers  should 
extend  their  political  system  to  any  portion  of  either  conti 
nent  without  endangering  our  peace  and  happiness ;  nor  can 
any  one  believe  that  our  southern  brethren,  if  left  to  them 
selves,  would  adopt  it  of  their  own  accord.  It  is  equally  im 
possible,  therefore,  that  we  should  behold  such  interposition 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  193 

in  any  form  with  indifference.  If  we  look  to  the  comparative 
strength  and  resources  of  Spain  and  those  new  Governments, 
and  their  distance  from  each  other,  it  must  be  obvious  that 
she  can  never  subdue  them.  It  is  still  the  true  policy  of  the 
United  States  to  leave  the  parties  to  themselves,  in  the  hope 
that  other  powers  will  pursue  the  same  course.  / 


THE  EMANCIPATION  OF  SOUTH  AMERICA  1 
HENRY  CLAY 

THREE  hundred  years  ago,  upon  the  ruins  of  the  thrones 
of  Montezuma  and  the  Incas  of  Peru,  Spain  erected  the  most 
stupendous  system  of  colonial  despotism  that  the  world  has 
ever  seen  —  the  most  vigorous,  the  most  exclusive.  The 
great  principle  and  object  of  this  system  has  been  to  render 
one  of  the  largest  portions  of  the  world  exclusively  subser 
vient,  in  all  its  faculties,  to  the  interests  of  an  inconsiderable 
spot  in  Europe.  To  effectuate  this  aim  of  her  policy,  she 
locked  up  Spanish  America  from  all  the  rest  of  the  world, 
and  prohibited,  under  the  severest  penalties,  any  foreigner 
from  entering  any  part  of  it.  To  keep  the  natives  themselves 
ignorant  of  each  other,  and  of  the  strength  and  resources  of 
the  several  parts  of  her  American  possessions,  she  next  pro 
hibited  the  inhabitants  of  one  viceroyalty  or  government 
from  visiting  those  of  another;  so  that  the  inhabitants  of 
Mexico,  for  example,  were  not  allowed  to  enter  the  vice- 
royalty  of  New  Granada.  The  agriculture  of  those  vast  re 
gions  was  so  regulated  and  restrained,  as  to  prevent  all  col 
lision  with  the  agriculture  of  the  peninsula.  Where  nature, 
by  the  character  and  composition  of  the  soil,  had  commanded, 
the  abominable  system  of  Spain  has  forbidden,  the  growth 
of  certain  articles.  Thus  the  olive  and  the  vine,  to  which 
Spanish  America  is  so  well  adapted,  are  prohibited,  wherever 

1  From  a  speech  delivered  before  the  House  of  Representatives,  March 
24,  1818.  His  ideas,  though  rejected  by  Congress,  were  endorsed  in  1820, 
and  in  1822  certain  of  the  Latin  American  countries  were  formally  rec 
ognized. 


THE  EMANCIPATION  OF  SOUTH  AMERICA     195 

their  culture  can  interfere  with  the  olive  and  the  vine  of  the 
peninsula.  The  commerce  of  the  country,  in  the  direction 
and  objects  of  the  exports  and  imports,  is  also  subjected  to 
the  narrow  and  selfish  views  of  Spain,  and  fettered  by  the 
odious  spirit  of  monopoly,  existing  in  Cadiz.  She  has  sought 
by  scattering  discord  among  the  several  castes  of  her  Amer 
ican  population,  and  by  a  debasing  course  of  education,  to 
perpetuate  her  oppression.  Whatever  concerns  public  law, 
or  the  science  of  government,  all  writings  upon  political  econ 
omy,  or  that  tend  to  give  vigor,  and  freedom,  and  expansion, 
to  the  intellect,  are  prohibited.  Gentlemen  would  be  aston 
ished  by  the  long  list  of  distinguished  authors,  whom  she 
proscribes,  to  be  found  in  Depons'  and  other  works.  A  main 
feature  in  her  policy  is  that  which  constantly  elevates  the 
European  and  depresses  the  American  character.  Out  of 
upwards  of  seven  hundred  and  fifty  viceroys  and  captains- 
general,  whom  she  has  appointed  since  the  conquest  of 
America,  about  eighteen  only  have  been  from  the  body  of 
the  American  population.  On  all  occasions  she  seeks  to 
raise  and  promote  her  European  subjects,  and  to  degrade 
and  humiliate  the  Creoles.  Wherever  in  America  her  sway 
extends,  everything  seems  to  pine  and  wither  beneath  its 
baneful  influence.  The  richest  regions  of  the  earth,  man, 
his  happiness  and  his  education,  all  the  fine  faculties  of  his 
soul,  are  regulated  and  modified,  and  moulded,  to  suit  the 
execrable  purposes  of  an  inexorable  despotism. 

Such  is  a  brief  and  imperfect  picture  of  the  state  of  things 
in  Spanish  America,  in  1808,  when  the  famous  transactions 
of  Bayonne  occurred.  The  King  of  Spain  and  the  Indies  (for 
Spanish  America  has  always  constituted  an  integral  part  of 
the  Spanish  empire)  abdicated  his  throne  and  became  a  vol 
untary  captive.  Even  at  this  day  one  does  not  know  whether 
he  should  most  condemn  the  baseness  and  perfidy  of  the  one 
party,  or  despise  the  meanness  and  imbecility  of  the  other. 


196  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

If  the  obligation  of  obedience  and  allegiance  existed  on  the 
part  of  the  colonies  to  the  King  of  Spain,  it  was  founded  on 
the  duty  of  protection  which  he  owed  them.  By  disqualify 
ing  himself  for  the  performance  of  this  duty,  they  became 
released  from  that  obligation.  The  monarchy  was  dissolved; 
and  each  integral  part  had  a  right  to  seek  its  own  happiness, 
by  the  institution  of  any  new  government  adapted  to  its 
wants.  Joseph  Bonaparte,  the  successor  de  facto  of  Ferdi 
nand,  recognized  this  right  on  the  part  of  the  colonies,  and 
recommended  them  to  establish  their  independence.  Thus, 
upon  the  ground  of  strict  right,  upon  the  footing  of  a  mere 
legal  question,  governed  by  forensic  rules,  the  colonies,  being 
absolved  by  the  acts  of  the  parent  country  from  the  duty  of 
subjection  to  it,  had  an  indisputable  right  to  set  up  for  them 
selves.  But  I  take  a  broader  and  a  bolder  position.  I  main 
tain,  that  an  oppressed  people  are  authorized,  whenever 
they  can,  to  rise  and  break  their  fetters.  This  was  the  great 
principle  of  the  English  revolution.  It  was  the  great  princi 
ple  of  our  own.  Vattel,  if  authority  were  wanting,  expressly 
supports  this  right.  We  must  pass  sentence  of  condemna 
tion  upon  the  founders  of  our  liberty,  say  that  they  were 
rebels,  traitors,  and  that  we  are  at  this  moment  legislating 
without  competent  powers,  before  we  can  condemn  the 
cause  of  Spanish  America.  Our  revolution  was  mainly  di 
rected  against  the  mere  theory  of  tyranny.  We  had  suffered 
comparatively  but  little;  we  had,  in  some  respects,  been 
kindly  treated;  but  our  intrepid  and  intelligent  fathers  saw, 
in  the  usurpation  of  the  power  to  levy  an  inconsiderable  tax, 
the  long  train  of  oppressive  acts  that  were  to  follow.  They 
rose;  they  breasted  the  storm;  they  achieved  our  freedom. 
Spanish  America  for  centuries  has  been  doomed  to  the 
practical  effects  of  an  odious  tyranny.  If  we  were  justified, 
she  is  more  than  justified. 

I  am  no  propagandist.    I  would  not  seek  to  force  upon 


THE  EMANCIPATION  OF  SOUTH  AMERICA     197 

other  nations  our  principles  and  our  liberty,  if  they  do  not 
want  them.  I  would  not  disturb  the  repose  even  of  a  detest 
able  despotism.  But  if  an  abused  and  oppressed  people  will 
their  freedom;  if  they  seek  to  establish  it;  if,  in  truth,  they 
have  established  it;  we  have  a  right,  as  a  sovereign  power,  to 
notice  the  fact,  and  to  act  as  circumstances  and  our  interest 
require.  I  will  say,  in  the  language  of  the  venerated  father 
of  my  country,  "born  in  a  land  of  liberty,  my  anxious  recol 
lections,  my  sympathetic  feelings,  and  my  best  wishes,  are 
irresistibly  excited,  whensoever,  in  any  country,  I  see  an 
oppressed  nation  unfurl  the  banners  of  freedom."  When 
ever  I  think  of  Spanish  America,  the  image  irresistibly 
forces  itself  upon  my  mind,  of  an  elder  brother,  whose  edu 
cation  has  been  neglected,  whose  person  has  been  abused 
and  maltreated,  and  who  has  been  disinherited  by  the  un- 
kindness  of  an  unnatural  parent.  And,  when  I  contemplate 
the  glorious  struggle  which  that  country  is  now  making,  I 
think  I  behold  that  brother  rising,  by  the  power  and  energy 
of  his  fine  native  genius,  to  the  manly  rank  which  nature 
and  nature's  God  intended  for  him.  .  .  . 

In  the  establishment  of  the  independence  of  Spanish 
America,  the  United  States  have  the  deepest  interest.  I 
have  no  hesitation  in  asserting  my  firm  belief  that  there  is  no 
question  in  the  foreign  policy  of  this  country  which  has  ever 
arisen,  or  which  I  can  conceive  as  ever  occurring,  in  the  de 
cision  of  which  we  have  had  or  can  have  so  much  at  stake. 
This  interest  concerns  our  politics,  our  commerce,  our  navi 
gation.  There  cannot  be  a  doubt  that,  Spanish  America 
once  independent,  whatever  may  be  the  form  of  the  govern 
ments  established  in  its  several  parts,  these  governments 
will  be  animated  by  an  American  feeling,  and  guided  by  an 
American  policy.  They  will  obey  the  laws  of  the  system  of 
the  new  world,  of  which  they  will  compose  a  part,  in  contra 
distinction  to  that  of  Europe.  Without  the  influence  of  that 


198  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

vortex  in  Europe,  the  balance  of  power  between  its  several 
parts,  the  preservation  of  which  has  so  often  drenched 
Europe  in  blood,  America  is  sufficiently  remote  to  contem 
plate  the  new  wars  which  are  to  afflict  that  quarter  of  the 
globe,  as  a  calm  if  not  a  cold  and  indifferent  spectator.  In 
relation  to  those  wars,  the  several  parts  of  America  will 
generally  stand  neutral.  And  as,  during  the  period  when 
they  rage,  it  will  be  important  that  a  liberal  system  of  neu 
trality  should  be  adopted  and  observed,  all  America  will  be 
interested  in  maintaining  and  enforcing  such  a  system.  The 
independence  of  Spanish  America,  then,  is  an  interest  of 
primary  consideration.  Next  to  that,  and  highly  important 
in  itself,  is  the  consideration  of  the  nature  of  their  govern 
ments.  That  is  a  question,  however,  for  themselves.  They 
will,  no  doubt,  adopt  those  kinds  of  governments  which  are 
best  suited  to  their  condition,  best  calculated  for  their  hap 
piness.  Anxious  as  I  am  that  they  should  be  free  govern 
ments,  we  have  no  right  to  prescribe  for  them.  They  are, 
and  ought  to  be,  the  sole  judges  for  themselves.  I  am 
strongly  inclined  to  believe  that  they  will  in  most,  if  not  all 
parts  of  their  country,  establish  free  governments.  We  are 
their  great  example.  Of  us  they  constantly  speak  as  of 
brothers,  having  a  similar  origin.  They  adopt  our  princi 
ples,  copy  our  institutions,  and,  in  many  instances,  employ 
the  very  language  and  sentiments  of  our  revolutionary 
papers. 

But  it  is  sometimes  said  that  they  are  too  ignorant  and 
too  superstitious  to  admit  of  the  existence  of  free  govern 
ments.  This  charge  of  ignorance  is  often  urged  by  persons 
themselves  actually  ignorant  of  the  real  condition  of  that 
people.  I  deny  the  alleged  fact  of  ignorance;  I  deny  the  in 
ference  from  that  fact,  if  it  were  true,  that  they  want  capac 
ity  for  free  government;  and  I  refuse  assent  to  the  further 
conclusion,  if  the  fact  were  true,  and  the  inference  just,  that 


THE  EMANCIPATION  OF  SOUTH  AMERICA     199 

we  are  to  be  indifferent  to  their  fate.  All  the  writers  of  the 
most  established  authority,  Depons,  Humboldt,  and  others, 
concur  in  assigning  to  the  people  of  Spanish  America  great 
quickness,  genius,  and  particular  aptitude  for  the  acquisi 
tion  of  the  exact  sciences,  and  others  which  they  have  been 
allowed  to  cultivate.  In  astronomy,  geology,  mineralogy, 
chemistry,  botany,  and  so  forth,  they  are  allowed  to  make 
distinguished  proficiency.  They  justly  boast  of  their  Abzate, 
Velasques,  and  Gama  and  other  illustrious  contributors  to 
science.  They  have  nine  universities,  and  in  the  city  of 
Mexico,  it  is  affirmed  by  Humboldt,  that  there  are  more 
solid  scientific  establishments  than  in  any  city  even  of 
North  America.  I  would  refer  to  the  message  of  the  su 
preme  director  of  La  Plata,  which  I  shall  hereafter  have  oc 
casion  to  use  for  another  purpose,  as  a  model  of  fine  com 
position  of  a  state  paper,  challenging  a  comparison  with  any, 
the  most  celebrated,  that  ever  issued  from  the  pens  of  Jef 
ferson  or  Madison.  Gentlemen  will  egregiously  err,  if  they 
form  their  opinions  of  the  present  moral  condition  of  Span 
ish  America,  from  what  it  was  under  the  debasing  system  of 
Spain.  The  eight  years'  revolution  in  which  it  has  been  en 
gaged,  has  already  produced  a  powerful  effect.  Education 
has  been  attended  to,  and  genius  developed. 


PAN-AMERICANISM  1 

ROBERT  LANSING 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  CONGRESS  :  — 
It  is  an  especial  gratification  to  me  to  address  you  to-day, 
not  only  as  the  officer  of  the  United  States  who  invited  you 
to  attend  this  great  Scientific  Congress  of  the  American  Re 
publics,  but  also  as  the  presiding  member  of  the  Governing 
Board  of  the  Pan-American  Union.  In  this  dual  capacity  I 
have  the  honor  and  the  pleasure  to  welcome  you,  gentlemen, 
to  the  capital  of  this  country,  in  the  full  confidence  that  your 
deliberations  will  be  of  mutual  benefit  in  your  various  spheres 
of  thought  and  research  —  and  not  only  in  your  individual 
spheres  but  in  the  all-embracing  sphere  of  Pan-American 
unity  and  fraternity  which  is  so  near  to  the  hearts  of  us  all. 
It  is  the  Pan-American  spirit  and  the  policy  of  Pan-Amer 
icanism  to  which  I  would  for  a  few  moments  direct  your  at 
tention  at  this  early  meeting  of  the  Congress,  since  it  is  my 
earnest  hope  that  "  Pan- America  "  will  be  the  keynote  which 
will  influence  your  relations  with  one  another  and  inspire 
your  thoughts  and  words. 

Nearly  a  century  has  passed  since  President  Monroe  pro 
claimed  to  the  world  his  famous  doctrine  as  the  National 
policy  of  the  United  States.  It  was  founded  on  the  principle 
that  the  safety  of  this  Republic  would  be  imperiled  by  the 
extension  of  sovereign  right  by  a  European  power  over  ter 
ritory  in  this  hemisphere.  Conceived  in  a  suspicion  of  mo 
narchical  institutions  and  in  a  full  sympathy  with  the  re- 

1  Address  of  welcome  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  December  27,  1915,  at 
the  Second  Pan-American  Scientific  Congress. 


PAN-AMERICANISM  201 

publican  idea,  it  was  uttered  at  a  time  when  our  neighbors  to 
the  south  had  won  their  independence  and  were  gradually 
adapting  themselves  to  the  exercise  of  their  newly  acquired 
rights.  To  those  struggling  nations  the  doctrine  became  a 
shield  against  the  great  European  powers,  which  in  the  spirit 
of  the  age  coveted  political  control  over  the  rich  regions 
which  the  new-born  States  had  made  their  own. 

The  United  States  was  then  a  small  nation,  but  a  nation 
which  had  been  tried  in  the  fire;  a  nation  whose  indomitable 
will  had  remained  unshaken  by  the  dangers  through  which 
it  had  passed.  The  announcement  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
was  a  manifestation  of  this  will.  It  was  a  courageous  thing 
for  President  Monroe  to  do.  It  meant  much  in  those  early 
days,  riot  only  to  this  country,  but  to  those  nations  which 
were  commencing  a  new  life  under  the  standard  of  liberty. 
How  much  it  meant  we  can  never  know,  since  for  four  dec 
ades  it  remained  unchallenged. 

During  that  period  the  younger  Republics  of  America, 
giving  expression  to  the  virile  spirit  born  of  independence 
and  liberal  institutions,  developed  rapidly  and  set  their  feet 
firmly  on  the  path  of  national  progress  which  has  led  them 
to  that  plane  of  intellectual  and  material  prosperity  which 
they  to-day  enjoy. 

Within  recent  years  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
has  found  no  occasion,  with  the  exception  of  the  Venezuela 
boundary  incident,  to  remind  Europe  that  the  Monroe  Doc 
trine  continues  unaltered  a  National  policy  of  this  Republic. 
The  Republics  of  America  are  no  longer  children  in  the  great 
family  of  nations.  They  have  attained  maturity.  With  en 
terprise  and  patriotic  fervor  they  are  working  out  their  sev 
eral  destinies. 

During  this  later  time  when  the  American  Nations  have 
come  into  a  realization  of  their  nationality  and  are  fully  con 
scious  of  the  responsibilities  and  privileges  which  are  theirs 


202  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

as  sovereign  and  independent  States,  there  has  grown  up 
a  feeling  that  the  Republics  of  this  hemisphere  constitute  a 
group  separate  and  apart  from  the  other  nations  of  the 
world,  a  group  which  is  united  by  common  ideals  and 
common  aspirations.  I  believe  that  this  feeling  is  general 
throughout  North  and  South  America,  and  that  year  by 
year  it  has  increased  until  it  has  become  a  potent  influence 
over  our  political  and  commercial  intercourse.  It  is  the 
same  feeling  which,  founded  on  sympathy  and  mutual  in 
terest,  exists  among  the  members  of  a  family.  It  is  the  tie 
which  draws  together  the  twenty-one  Republics  and  makes 
of  them  the  American  Family  of  Nations. 

This  feeling,  vague  at  first,  has  become  to-day  a  definite 
and  certain  force.  We  term  it  the  "Pan-American"  spirit, 
from  which  springs  the  international  policy  of  Pan-Ameri 
canism.  It  is  that  policy  which  is  responsible  for  this  great 
gathering  of  distinguished  men,  who  represent  the  best  and 
most  advanced  thought  of  the  Americas.  It  is  a  policy  which 
this  Government  has  unhesitatingly  adopted  and  which  it 
will  do  all  in  its  power  to  foster  and  promote. 

When  we  attempt  to  analyze  Pan-Americanism  we  find 
that  the  essential  qualities  are  those  of  the  family  —  sym 
pathy,  helpfulness  and  a  sincere  desire  to  see  another  grow 
in  prosperity,  absence  of  covetousness  of  another's  posses 
sions,  absence  of  jealousy  of  another's  prominence,  and, 
above  all,  absence  of  that  spirit  of  intrigue  which  menaces 
the  domestic  peace  of  a  neighbor.  Such  are  the  qualities  of 
the  family  tie  among  individuals,  and  such  should  be,  and  I 
believe  are,  the  qualities  which  compose  the  tie  which  unites 
the  American  Family  of  Nations. 

I  speak  only  for  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
but  in  doing  so  I  am  sure  that  I  express  sentiments  which 
will  find  an  echo  in  every  Republic  represented  here,  when 
I  say  that  the  might  of  this  country  will  never  be  exercised 


PAN-AMERICANISM  203 

in  a  spirit  of  greed  to  wrest  from  a  neighboring  state  its 
territory  or  possessions.  The  ambitions  of  this  Republic  do 
not  lie  in  the  path  of  conquest  but  in  the  paths  of  peace  and 
justice.  Whenever  and  wherever  we  can,  we  will  stretch 
forth  a  hand  to  those  who  need  help.  If  the  sovereignty  of  a 
sister  Republic  is  menaced  from  overseas,  the  power  of  the 
United  States  and,  I  hope  and  believe,  the  united  power  of 
the  American  Republics  will  constitute  a  bulwark  which  will 
protect  the  independence  and  integrity  of  their  neighbor 
from  unjust  invasion  or  aggression.  The  American  Family 
of  Nations  might  well  take  for  its  motto  that  of  Dumas's 
famous  musketeers,  "One  for  all;  all  for  one."  / 

If  I  have  correctly  interpreted  Pan- Americanism  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  relations  of  our  Governments  with  those 
beyond  the  seas,  it  is  in  entire  harmony  with  the  Monroe 
Doctrine.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  is  a  national  policy  of  the 
United  States;  Pan- Americanism  is  an  international  policy 
of  the  Americas.  The  motives  are  to  an  extent  different; 
the  ends  sought  are  the  same.  Both  can  exist  without  im 
pairing  the  force  of  either.  And  both  do  exist  and,  I  trust, 
will  ever  exist  in  all  their  vigor. 

But  Pan-Americanism  extends  beyond  the  sphere  of  pol 
itics  and  finds  its  application  in  the  varied  fields  of  human 
enterprise.  Bearing  in  mind  that  the  essential  idea  mani 
fests  itself  in  cooperation,  it  becomes  necessary  for  effective 
cooperation  that  we  should  know  each  other  better  than  we 
do  now.  We  must  not  only  be  neighbors,  but  friends;  not 
only  friends,  but  intimates.  We  must  understand  one  another. 
We  must  comprehend  our  several  needs.  We  must  study  the 
phases  of  material  and  intellectual  development  which  enter 
into  the  varied  problems  of  national  progress.  We  should, 
therefore,  when  opportunity  offers,  come  together  and  fa 
miliarize  ourselves  with  each  other's  processes  of  thought  in 
dealing  with  legal,  economic,  and  educational  questions. 


204  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

Commerce  and  industry,  science  and  art,  public  and  pri 
vate  law,  government  and  education,  all  those  great  fields 
which  invite  the  intellectual  thought  of  man,  fall  within  the 
province  of  the  deliberations  of  this  congress.  In  the  ex 
change  of  ideas  and  comparison  of  experiences  we  will  come 
to  know  one  another  and  to  carry  to  the  nations  which  we 
represent  a  better  and  truer  knowledge  of  our  neighbors 
than  we  have  had  in  the  past.  I  believe  that  from  that  wider 
knowledge  a  mutual  esteem  and  trust  will  spring  which  will 
unite  these  Republics  more  closely  politically,  commercially, 
and  intellectually,  and  will  give  to  the  Pan-American  spirit 
an  impulse  and  power  which  it  has  never  known  before. 

The  present  epoch  is  one  which  must  bring  home  to  every 
thinking  American  the  wonderful  benefits  to  be  gained  by 
trusting  our  neighbors  and  by  being  trusted  by  them,  by 
cooperation  and  helpfulness,  by  a  dignified  regard  for  the 
rights  of  all,  and  by  living  our  national  lives  in  harmony  and 
good- will. 

Across  the  thousands  of  miles  of  the  Atlantic  we  see 
Europe  convulsed  with  the  most  terrible  conflict  which  this 
world  has  ever  witnessed;  we  see  the  manhood  of  these  great 
nations  shattered,  their  homes  ruined,  their  productive 
energies  devoted  to  the  one  purpose  of  destroying  their 
fellow-men.  When  we  contemplate  the  untold  misery  which 
these  once  happy  people  are  enduring  and  the  heritage 
which  they  are  transmitting  to  succeeding  generations,  we 
cannot  but  contrast  a  continent  at  war  and  a  continent  at 
peace.  The  spectacle  teaches  a  lesson  we  cannot  ignore. 

If  we  seek  the  dominant  ideas  in  world-politics  since  we 
became  independent  nations,  we  will  find  that  we  won  our 
liberties  when  individualism  absorbed  men's  thoughts  and 
inspired  their  deeds.  This  idea  was  gradually  supplanted  by 
that  of  nationalism,  which  found  expression  in  the  ambitions 
of  conquest  and  the  greed  for  territory  so  manifest  in  the 


PAN-AMERICANISM  205 

nineteenth  century.  Following  the  impulse  of  nationalism 
the  idea  of  internationalism  began  to  develop.  It  appeared 
to  be  an  increasing  influence  throughout  the  civilized  world, 
when  the  present  war  of  empires,  that  great  manifestation 
of  nationalism,  stayed  its  progress  in  Europe  and  brought 
discouragement  to  those  who  had  hoped  that  the  new  idea 
would  usher  in  an  era  of  universal  peace  and  justice. 

While  we  are  not  actual  participants  in  the  momentous 
struggle  which  is  shattering  the  ideals  toward  which  civ 
ilization  was  moving  and  is  breaking  down  those  principles 
on  which  internationalism  is  founded,  we  stand  as  anxious 
spectators  of  this  most  terrible  example  of  nationalism.  Let 
us  hope  that  it  is  the  final  outburst  of  the  cardinal  evils  of 
that  idea  which  has  for  nearly  a  century  spread  its  baleful 
influence  over  the  world. 

Pan-Americanism  is  an  expression  of  the  idea  of  inter 
nationalism.  America  has  become  the  guardian  of  that  idea, 
which  will  in  the  end  rule  the  world.  Pan-Americanism  is 
the  most  advanced  as  well  as  the  most  practical  form  of  that 
idea.  It  has  been  made  possible  because  of  our  geographical 
isolation,  of  our  similar  political  institutions,  and  of  our 
common  conception  of  human  rights.  Since  the  European 
War  began,  other  factors  have  strengthened  this  natural 
bond  and  given  impulse  to  the  movement.  Never  before 
have  our  people  so  fully  realized  the  significance  of  the  words 
" peace"  and  "fraternity."  Never  have  the  need  and  bene 
fit  of  international  cooperation  in  every  form  of  human  ac 
tivity  been  so  evident  as  they  are  to-day.  / 

The  path  of  opportunity  lies  plain  before  us  Americans. 
The  government  and  people  of  every  Republic  should  strive 
to  inspire  in  others  confidence  and  cooperation  by  exhibiting 
integrity  of  purpose  and  equity  in  action.  Let  us  as  mem 
bers  of  this  congress,  therefore,  meet  together  on  the  plane 
of  common  interests,  and  together  seek  the  common  good. 


206  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

Whatever  is  of  common  interest,  whatever  makes  for  the 
common  good,  whatever  demands  united  effort  is  a  fit  sub 
ject  for  applied  Pan-Americanism.  Fraternal  helpfulness  is 
the  keystone  to  the  arch.  Its  pillars  are  faith  and  justice. 

In  this  great  movement  this  congress  will,  I  believe,  play 
an  exalted  part.  You,  gentlemen,  represent  powerful  intel 
lectual  forces  in  your  respective  countries.  Together  you 
represent  the  enlightened  thought  of  the  continent.  The 
policy  of  Pan- Americanism  is  practical.  The  Pan-American 
spirit  is  ideal.  It  finds  its  source  and  being  in  the  minds  of 
thinking  men.  It  is  the  offspring  of  the  best,  the  noblest  con 
ception  of  international  obligation. 

With  all  earnestness,  therefore,  I  commend  to  you,  gentle 
men,  the  thought  of  the  American  Republics,  twenty-one 
sovereign  and  independent  nations,  bound  together  by  faith 
and  justice,  and  firmly  cemented  by  a  sympathy  which 
knows  no  superior  and  no  inferior,  but  which  recognizes  only 
equality  and  fraternity. 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE 1 
A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL 

IN  spite  of  its  ominous  sound,  the  suggestion  of  a  league 
of  nations  to  enforce  peace  has  no  connection  with  any  effort 
to  stop  the  present  war.  It  is  aimed  solely  at  preventing 
future  conflicts  after  the  terrific  struggle  now  raging  has 
come  to  an  end;  and  yet  this  is  not  a  bad  time  for  people  in 
private  life  to  bring  forward  proposals  of  such  a  nature.  Ow 
ing  to  the  vast  number  of  soldiers  under  arms,  to  the  propor 
tion  of  men  and  women  in  the  warring  countries  who  suffer 
acutely,  to  the  extent  of  the  devastation  and  misery,  it  is 
probable  that,  whatever  the  result  may  be,  the  people  of  all 
nations  will  be  more  anxious  to  prevent  the  outbreak  of 
another  war  than  ever  before  in  the  history  of  the  world. 
The  time  is  not  yet  ripe  for  governments  to  take  action,  but 
it  is  ripe  for  public  discussion  of  practicable  means  to  reduce 
the  danger  of  future  breaches  of  international  peace. 

The  nations  of  the  world  to-day  are  in  much  the  position 
of  frontier  settlements  in  America  half  a  century  ago,  before 
orderly  government  was  set  up.  The  men  there  were  in  the 
main  well  disposed,  but  in  the  absence  of  an  authority  that 
could  enforce  order  each  man,  feeling  no  other  security  from 
attack,  carried  arms  which  he  was  prepared  to  use  if  danger 
threatened.  The  first  step,  when  affrays  became  unbear 
able,  was  the  formation  of  a  vigilance  committee,  supported 
by  the  enrollment  of  all  good  citizens,  to  prevent  men  from 
shooting  one  another  and  to  punish  offenders.  People  did 

1  Reprinted  from  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  September,  1915,  through  the 
generous  permission  of  the  author  and  of  the  Atlantic  Monthly  Publishing 
Company. 


208  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

not  wait  for  a  gradual  improvement  by  the  preaching  of 
higher  ethics  and  a  better  civilization.  They  felt  that  vio 
lence  must  be  met  by  force,  and,  when  the  show  of  force  was 
strong  enough,  violence  ceased.  In  time  the  vigilance  com 
mittee  was  replaced  by  the  policeman  and  by  the  sheriff 
with  the  posse  comitatus.  The  policeman  and  the  sheriff 
maintain  order  because  they  have  the  bulk  of  the  community 
behind  them,  and  no  country  has  yet  reached,  or  is  likely  for 
an  indefinite  period  to  reach,  such  a  state  of  civilization  that 
it  can  wholly  dispense  with  the  police. 

Treaties  for  the  arbitration  of  international  disputes  are 
good.  They  have  proved  an  effective  method  of  settling 
questions  that  would  otherwise  have  bred  ill-feeling  without 
directly  causing  war;  but  when  passion  runs  high,  and  deep- 
rooted  interests  or  sentiments  are  at  stake,  there  is  need  of 
the  sheriff  with  his  posse  to  enforce  the  obligation.  There 
are,  no  doubt,  differences  in  the  conception  of  justice  and 
right,  divergencies  of  civilization,  so  profound  that  people 
will  fight  over  them,  and  face  even  the  prospect  of  disaster 
in  war  rather  than  submit.  Yet  even  in  such  cases  it  is  worth 
while  to  postpone  the  conflict,  to  have  a  public  discussion  of 
the  question  at  issue  before  an  impartial  tribunal,  and  thus 
give  to  the  people  of  the  countries  involved  a  chance  to  con 
sider,  before  hostilities  begin,  whether  the  risk  and  suffering 
of  war  is  really  worth  while.  No  sensible  man  expects  to 
abolish  wars  altogether,  but  we  ought  to  seek  to  reduce 
the  probability  of  war  as  much  as  possible.  It  is  on  these 
grounds  that  the  suggestion  has  been  put  forth  of  a  league  of 
nations  to  enforce  peace. 

Without  attempting  to  cover  details  of  operation,  which 
are,  indeed,  of  vital  importance  and  will  require  careful 
study  by  experts  in  international  law  and  diplomacy,  the 
proposal  contains  four  points  stated  as  general  objects. 
The  first  is  that  before  resorting  to  arms  the  members  of  the 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE      209 

league  shall  submit  disputes  with  one  another,  if  justiciable, 
to  an  international  tribunal;  second,  that  in  like  manner 
they  shall  submit  non-justiciable  questions  (that  is,  such  as 
cannot  be  decided  on  the  basis  of  strict  international  law)  to 
an  international  council  of  conciliation,  which  shall  recom 
mend  a  fair  and  amicable  solution;  third,  that  if  any  member 
of  the  league  wages  war  against  another  before  submitting 
the  question  in  dispute  to  the  tribunal  or  council,  all  the 
other  members  shall  jointly  use  forthwith  both  their  eco 
nomic  and  military  forces  against  the  state  that  so  breaks  the 
peace;  and,  fourth,  that  the  signatory  powers  shall  endeavor 
to  codify  and  improve  the  rules  of  international  law. 

The  kernel  of  the  proposal,  the  feature  in  which  it  differs 
from  other  plans,  lies  in  the  third  point,  obliging  all  the  mem 
bers  of  the  league  to  declare  war  on  any  member  violating 
the  pact  of  peace.  This  is  the  provision  that  provokes  both 
adherence  and  opposition;  and  at  first  it  certainly  gives  one 
a  shock  that  a  people  should  be  asked  to  pledge  itself  to  go 
to  war  over  a  quarrel  which  is  not  of  its  making,  in  which  it 
has  no  interest,  and  in  which  it  may  believe  that  substantial 
justice  lies  on  the  other  side.  If,  indeed,  the  nations  of  the 
earth  could  maintain  complete  isolation,  could  pursue  each 
its  own  destiny  without  regard  to  the  rest,  if  they  were  not 
affected  by  a  war  between  two  others  or  liable  to  be  drawn 
into  it;  if,  in  short,  there  were  no  overwhelming  common  in 
terest  in  securing  universal  peace,  the  provision  would  be  in 
tolerable.  It  would  be  as  bad  as  the  liability  of  an  individ 
ual  to  take  part  in  the  posse  comitatus  of  a  community  with 
which  he  had  nothing  in  common.  But  in  every  civilized 
country  the  public  force  is  employed  to  prevent  any  man, 
however  just  his  claim,  from  vindicating  his  own  right  with 
his  own  hand  instead  of  going  to  law;  and  every  citizen  is 
bound,  when  needed,  to  assist  in  preventing  him,  because 
that  is  the  only  way  to  restrain  private  war,  and  the  main- 


210  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

tenance  of  order  is  of  paramount  importance  for  every  one. 
Surely  the  family  of  nations  has  a  like  interest  in  restraining 
war  between  states. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  members  of  the  league  are  not 
to  bind  themselves  to  enforce  the  decision  of  the  tribunal  or 
the  award  of  the  council  of  conciliation.  That  may  come  in 
the  remote  future,  but  it  is  no  part  of  this  proposal.  It  would 
be  imposing  obligations  far  greater  than  the  nations  can 
reasonably  be  expected  to  assume  at  the  present  day;  for  the 
conceptions  of  international  morality  and  fair  play  are  still 
so  vague  and  divergent  that  a  nation  can  hardly  bind  itself 
to  wage  war  on  another,  with  which  it  has  no  quarrel,  to  en 
force  a  decision  or  a  recommendation  of  whose  justice  or 
wisdom  it  may  not  be  itself  heartily  convinced.  The  proposal 
goes  no  farther  than  obliging  all  the  members  to  prevent  by 
threat  of  armed  intervention  a  breach  of  the  public  peace 
before  the  matter  in  dispute  has  been  submitted  to  arbi 
tration,  and  this  is  neither  unreasonable  nor  impracticable. 
There  are  many  questions,  especially  of  a  non-justiciable 
nature,  on  which  we  should  not  be  willing  to  bind  ourselves 
to  accept  the  decision  of  an  arbitration,  and  where  we  should 
regard  compulsion  by  armed  intervention  of  the  rest  of  the 
world  as  outrageous.  Take,  for  example,  the  question  of 
Asiatic  immigration,  or  a  claim  that  the  Panama  Canal  ought 
to  be  an  unfortified  neutral  highway,  or  the  desire  by  a  Euro 
pean  power  to  take  possession  of  Colombia.  But  we  ought 
not,  in  the  interest  of  universal  peace,  to  object  to  making  a 
public  statement  of  our  position  in  an  international  court 
or  council  before  resorting  to  arms;  and  in  fact  the  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  ratified  on 
November  14,  1914,  provides  that  all  disputes  between  the 
high  contracting  parties,  of  every  nature  whatsoever,  shall, 
failing  other  methods  of  adjustment,  be  referred  for  investi 
gation  and  report  to  a  Permanent  International  Commission 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE      211 

with  a  stipulation  that  neither  country  shall  declare  war  or 
begin  hostilities  during  such  investigation  and  before  the 
report  is  submitted. 

What  is  true  of  this  country  is  true  of  others.  To  agree  to 
abide  by  the  result  of  an  arbitration,  on  every  non- justici 
able  question  of  every  nature  whatsoever,  on  pain  of  com 
pulsion  in  any  form  by  the  whole  world,  would  involve  a 
greater  cession  of  sovereignty  than  nations  would  now  be 
willing  to  concede.  This  appears,  indeed,  perfectly  clearly 
from  the  discussions  at  the  Hague  Conference  of  1907.  But 
to  exclude  differences  that  do  not  turn  on  questions  of  in 
ternational  law  from  the  cases  where  a  state  must  present 
the  matter  to  a  tribunal  or  council  of  conciliation  before 
beginning  hostilities,  would  leave  very  little  check  upon  the 
outbreak  of  war.  Almost  every  conflict  between  European 
nations  for  more  than  half  a  century  has  been  based  upon 
some  dissension  which  could  not  be  decided  by  strict  rules 
of  law,  and  in  which  a  violation  of  international  law  or  of 
treaty  rights  has  usually  not  even  been  used  as  an  excuse. 
This  was  true  of  the  war  of  France  and  Sardinia  against 
Austria  in  1859,  and  in  substance  of  the  war  between  Prussia 
and  Austria  in  1866.  It  was  true  of  the  Franco-Prussian 
War  in  1870,  of  the  Russo-Turkish  War  in  1876,  of  the  Bal 
kan  Wrar  against  Turkey  in  1912,  and  of  the  present  war. 

No  one  will  claim  that  a  league  to  enforce  peace,  such  as  is 
proposed,  would  wholly  prevent  war,  but  it  would  greatly 
reduce  the  probability  of  hostilities.  It  would  take  away  the 
advantage  of  surprise,  of  catching  the  enemy  unprepared 
for  a  sudden  attack.  It  would  give  a  chance  for  public  opin 
ion  on  the  nature  of  the  controversy  to  be  formed  through 
out  the  world  and  in  the  militant  country.  The  latter  is  of 
great  importance,  for  the  moment  war  is  declared  argument 
about  its  merits  is  at  once  stifled.  Passion  runs  too  high  for 
calm  debate,  and  patriotism  forces  people  to  support  their 


212  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

government.  But  a  trial  before  an  international  tribunal 
would  give  time  for  discussion  while  emotion  is  not  yet  highly 
inflamed.  Men  opposed  to  war  would  be  able  to  urge  its  in 
justice,  to  ask  whether,  after  all,  the  object  is  worth  the  sacri 
fice,  and  they  would  get  a  hearing  from  their  fellow  citizens 
which  they  cannot  get  after  war  begins.  The  mere  delay,  the 
interval  for  consideration,  would  be  an  immense  gain  for  the 
prospect  of  a  peaceful  settlement. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  of  interest  to  recall  the  way 
in  which  the  medieval  custom  of  private  war  was  abolished 
in  England.  It  was  not  done  at  one  step,  but  gradually,  by 
preventing  men  from  avenging  their  own  wrongs  before 
going  to  court.  The  trial  by  battle  long  remained  a  recog 
nized  part  of  judicial  procedure,  but  only  after  the  case  had 
been  presented  to  the  court,  and  only  in  accordance  with  ju 
dicial  forms.  This  had  the  effect  of  making  the  practice  far 
less  common,  and  of  limiting  it  to  the  principals  in  the  quar 
rel  instead  of  involving  a  general  breach  of  the  peace  in 
which  their  retainers  and  friends  took  part.  Civilization  was 
still  too  crude  to  give  up  private  war,  but  the  arm  of  the  law 
and  the  force  in  the  hands  of  the  Crown  were  strong  enough 
to  delay  a  personal  conflict  until  the  case  had  been  presented 
to  court.  Without  such  a  force  the  result  could  not  have 
been  attained. 

Every  one  will  admit  this  in  the  case  of  private  citizens, 
but  many  people  shrink  from  the  use  of  international  force  to 
restrain  war;  some  of  them  on  the  principle  of  strict  non- 
resistance,  that  any  taking  of  life  in  war  cannot  be  justified, 
no  matter  what  its  purpose  or  effect.  Such  people  have  the 
most  lofty  moral  ideals,  but  these  are  not  the  whole  of  true 
statesmanship,  which  must  aim  at  the  total  welfare  and 
strive  to  lessen  the  scourges  of  mankind  even  by  forcible 
means.  Many  years  ago  when  an  Atlantic  steamship  was 
wrecked,  it  was  said  that  some  of  the  crew  made  a  rush  for 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE      213 

the  boats,  beating  the  passengers  off,  and  that  the  captain, 
when  he  was  urged  to  restore  order  by  shooting  a  mutineer, 
replied  that  he  was  too  near  eternity  to  take  life.  The  result 
was  a  far  greater  loss  of  life  than  would  have  been  suffered 
had  he  restored  order  by  force.  Probably  no  man  with  the 
instincts  of  a  statesman  would  defend  his  conduct  to-day. 
He  was  not  a  coward,  but  his  sentiments  unfitted  him  for  a 
responsible  post  in  an  emergency. 

Most  people  who  have  been  thinking  seriously  about  the 
maintenance  of  peace  are  tending  to  the  opinion  that  a  sanc 
tion  of  some  kind  is  needed  to  enforce  the  observance  of 
treaties  and  of  agreements  for  arbitration.  Among  the  meas 
ures  proposed  has  been  that  of  an  international  police  force, 
under  the  control  of  a  central  council  which  could  use  it  to 
preserve  order  throughout  the  world.  At  present  such  a  plan 
seems  visionary.  The  force  would  have  to  be  at  least  large 
enough  to  cope  with  the  army  that  any  single  nation  could 
put  into  the  field  —  under  existing  conditions  let  us  say  five 
millions  of  men  fully  equipped  and  supplied  with  artillery 
and  ammunition  for  a  campaign  of  several  months.  These 
troops  need  not  be  under  arms,  or  quartered  near  The 
Hague,  but  they  must  be  thoroughly  trained  and  ready  to 
be  called  out  at  short  notice.  Practically  that  would  entail 
yearly  votes  of  the  legislative  bodies  of  each  of  the  nations 
supplying  a  quota,  and  if  any  one  of  them  failed  to  make  the 
necessary  appropriation  there  would  be  great  difficulty  in 
preventing  others  from  following  its  example.  The  whole 
organization  would,  therefore,  be  in  constant  danger  of 
going  to  pieces. 

But  quite  apart  from  the  practical  difficulties  in  the  per 
manent  execution  of  such  a  plan,  let  us  see  how  it  would 
affect  the  United  States.  The  amount  of  the  contingents  of 
the  various  countries  would  be  apportioned  with  some  re 
gard  to  population,  wealth  and  economic  resources;  and  if 


214  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

the  total  were  five  million  men,  our  quota  on  a  moderate  es 
timate  might  be  five  hundred  thousand  men.  Is  it  conceiv 
able  that  the  United  States  would  agree  to  keep  anything 
like  that  number  drilled,  equipped  and  ready  to  take  the 
field  on  the  order  of  an  international  council  composed  mainly 
of  foreign  nations?  Of  course  it  will  be  answered  that  these 
figures  are  exaggerated  because  any  such  plan  will  be  ac 
companied  by  a  reduction  in  armaments.  But  that  is  an 
easier  thing  to  talk  about  than  to  effect,  and  especially  to 
maintain.  One  must  not  forget  that  the  existing  system 
of  universal  compulsory  military  service  on  the  continent  of 
Europe  arose  from  Napoleon's  attempt  to  limit  the  size  of 
the  Prussian  army.  He  would  be  a  bold  or  sanguine  man 
who  should  assert  that  any  treaty  to  limit  armaments  could 
not  in  like  manner  be  evaded;  and,  however  much  they  were 
limited,  the  quantity  of  troops  to  be  held  at  the  disposal  of  a 
foreign  council  would  of  necessity  be  large,  while  no  nation 
would  be  willing  to  pledge  for  the  purpose  the  whole  of  its 
military  force.  Such  a  plan  may  be  practicable  in  some 
remote  future  when  the  whole  world  is  a  vast  federation 
under  a  central  government,  but  that  would  seem  to  be  a 
matter  for  coming  generations,  not  for  the  men  of  our  day. 

Moreover,  the  nations  whose  troops  were  engaged  in 
fighting  any  country  would  inevitably  find  themselves  at 
war  with  that  country. 

One  cannot  imagine  saying  to  some  foreign  state,  "Our 
troops  are  killing  yours,  they  are  invading  your  land,  we 
are  supplying  them  with  recruits  and  munitions  of  war,  but 
otherwise  we  are  at  peace  with  you.  You  must  treat  us  as  a 
neutral,  and  accord  to  our  citizens,  to  their  commerce  and 
property,  all  the  rights  of  neutrality."  In  short,  the  plan  of 
an  international  police  force  involves  all  the  consequences 
of  the  proposal  of  a  league  to  enforce  peace,  with  other  com 
plex  provisions  extremely  hard  to  execute. 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE      215 

A  suggestion  more  commonly  made  is  that  the  members 
of  the  league  of  nations,  instead  of  pledging  themselves  to 
use  their  military  forces  forthwith  against  any  of  their  num 
ber  that  commits  a  breach  of  the  peace,  should  agree  to 
hold  at  once  a  conference,  and  take  such  measures  —  dip 
lomatic,  economic,  or  military  —  as  may  be  necessary  to 
prevent  war.  The  objection  to  this  is  that  it  weakens  very 
seriously  the  sanction.  Conferences  are  apt  to  shrink  from 
decisive  action.  Some  of  the  members  are  timid,  others 
want  delay,  and  much  time  is  consumed  in  calling  the  body 
together  and  in  discussions  after  it  meets.  Meanwhile  the 
war  may  have  broken  out,  and  be  beyond  control.  It  is 
much  easier  to  prevent  a  fire  than  to  put  it  out.  The  country 
that  is  planning  war  is  likely  to  think  it  has  friends  in  the 
conference,  or  neighbors  that  it  can  intimidate,  who  will  pre 
vent  any  positive  decision  until  the  fire  is  burning.  Even 
if  the  majority  decide  on  immediate  action,  the  minority  is 
not  bound  thereby.  One  great  power  refuses  to  take  part; 
a  second  will  not  do  so  without  her,  the  rest  hesitate  and 
nothing  is  done  to  prevent  the  war. 

A  conference  is  an  excellent  thing.  The  proposal  of  a 
league  to  enforce  peace  by  no  means  excludes  it;  but  the  im 
portant  matter,  the  effective  principle,  is  that  every  mem 
ber  of  the  league  should  know  that  whether  a  conference 
meets  or  not,  or  whatever  action  it  may  take  or  fail  to  take, 
all  the  members  of  the  league  have  pledged  themselves  to 
declare  war  forthwith  on  any  member  that  commits  a  breach 
of  the  peace  before  submitting  its  case  to  the  international 
tribunal  or  council  of  conciliation.  Such  a  pledge,  and  such 
a  pledge  alone,  can  have  the  strong  deterrent  influence,  and 
thus  furnish  the  sanction  that  is  needed.  Of  course  the 
pledge  may  not  be  kept.  Like  other  treaties  it  may  be 
broken  by  the  parties  to  it.  Nations  are  composed  of  human 
beings  with  human  weaknesses,  and  one  of  these  is  a  disin- 


31G  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

clination  to  perform  an  agreement  when  it  involves  a  sacri 
fice.  Nevertheless,  nations,  like  men,  often  do  have  enough 
sense  of  honor,  of  duty,  or  of  ultimate  self-interest  to  carry 
out  their  contracts  at  no  little  immediate  sacrifice.'  They  are 
certainly  more  likely  to  do  a  thing  if  they  have  pledged  them 
selves  to  it  than  if  they  have  not;  and  any  nation  would 
be  running  a  terrible  risk  that  went  to  war  in  the  hope  that 
the  other  members  of  the  league  would  break  their  pledges. 

The  same  objection  applies  to  another  alternative  pro 
posed  in  place  of  an  immediate  resort  to  military  force;  that 
is  the  use  of  economic  pressure,  by  a  universal  agreement, 
for  example,  to  have  no  commercial  intercourse  with  the  na 
tion  breaking  the  peace.  A  threat  of  universal  boycott  is, 
no  doubt,  formidable,  but  by  no  means  so  formidable  as  a 
threat  of  universal  war.  A  large  country  with  great  natural 
resources  which  has  determined  to  make  war  might  be  will 
ing  to  face  commercial  nonintercourse  with  the  other  mem 
bers  of  the  league  during  hostilities,  when  it  would  not  for  a 
moment  contemplate  the  risk  of  fighting  them.  A  threat, 
for  example,  by  England,  France,  and  Germany  to  stop  all 
trade  with  the  United  States  might  or  might  not  have  pre 
vented  our  going  to  war  with  Spain,  but  a  declaration  that 
they  would  take  part  with  all  their  armies  and  navies  against 
us  would  certainly  have  done  so. 

It  has  often  been  pointed  out  that  the  threat  of  general 
nonintercourse  would  bear  much  more  hardly  on  some  coun 
tries  than  on  others.  That  may  not  in  itself  be  a  fatal  objec 
tion,  but  a  very  serious  consideration  arises  from  the  fact 
that  there  would  be  a  premium  on  preparation  for  war.  A 
nation  which  had  accumulated  vast  quantities  of  munitions, 
food  and  supplies  of  all  kinds,  might  afford  to  disregard  it; 
while  another  less  fully  prepared  could  not. 

Moreover,  economic  pressure,  although  urged  as  a  milder 
measure,  is  in  fact  more  difficult  to  apply  and  maintain.  A 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE      217 

declaration  of  war  is  a  single  act,  and  when  made  sustains 
itself  by  the  passion  it  inflames;  while  commercial  noninter- 
course  is  a  continuous  matter,  subject  to  constant  opposition 
exerted  in  an  atmosphere  relatively  cool.  Our  manufacturers 
would  complain  bitterly  at  being  deprived  of  dyestuffs  and 
other  chemical  products  on  account  of  a  quarrel  in  which  we 
had  no  interest;  the  South  would  suffer  severely  by  the  loss 
of  a  market  for  cotton;  the  shipping  firms  and  the  exporters 
and  importers  of  all  kinds  would  be  gravely  injured;  and 
all  these  interests  would  bring  to  bear  upon  Congress  a 
pressure  well-nigh  irresistible.  The  same  would  be  true  of 
every  other  neutral  country,  a  fact  which  would  be  perfectly 
well  known  to  the  intending  belligerent  and  reduce  its  fear 
of  a  boycott. 

But,  it  is  said,  why  not  try  economic  pressure  first,  and,  if 
that  fails,  resort  to  military  force,  instead  of  inflicting  at 
once  on  unoffending  members  of  the  league  the  terrible  ca 
lamity  of  war?  What  do  we  mean  by  "if  that  fails"?  Do 
we  mean,  if  in  spite  of  the  economic  pressure  the  war  breaks 
out?  But  then  the  harm  is  done,  the  fire  is  ablaze  and  can 
be  put  out  only  by  blood.  The  object  of  the  league  is  not  to 
chastise  a  country  guilty  of  breaking  the  peace,  but  to  pre 
vent  the  outbreak  of  war,  and  to  prevent  it  by  the  immediate 
prospect  of  such  appalling  consequences  to  the  offender  that 
he  will  not  venture  to  run  the  risk.  If  a  number  of  great 
powers  were  to  pledge  themselves,  with  serious  intent,  to 
wage  war  jointly  and  severally  on  any  one  of  their  members 
that  attacked  another  before  submitting  the  case  to  arbitra 
tion,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  the  casus 
fcederis  would  ever  occur,  while  any  less  drastic  provision 
would  be  far  less  effective. 

An  objection  has  been  raised  to  the  proposal  for  a  league 
to  enforce  peace  on  the  ground  that  it  has  in  the  past  often 
proved  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  determine  which  of 


218  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

two  belligerents  began  a  war.  The  criticism  is  serious,  and 
presents  a  practical  difficulty,  grave  but  probably  not  insur 
mountable.  The  proposal  merely  lays  down  a  general  prin 
ciple,  and  if  adopted  the  details  would  have  to  be  worked  out 
very  fully  and  carefully  in  a  treaty  which  would  specify  the 
acts  that  would  constitute  the  waging  of  war  by  one  mem 
ber  upon  another.  These  would  naturally  be,  not  the  mere 
creating  of  apprehension,  but  specific  acts,  such  as  a  declara 
tion  of  war,  invasion  of  territory,  the  use  of  force  at  sea  not 
disowned  within  forty-eight  hours,  or  an  advance  into  a 
region  in  dispute.  This  last  is  an  especially  difficult  point, 
but  the  portions  of  the  earth's  surface  in  which  different 
nations  have  conflicting  claims  is  growing  less  decade  by 
decade.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  cases  which  would 
arise  under  a  league  of  peace  are  not  like  those  which  have 
arisen  in  the  past,  where  one  nation  was  determined  to  go  to 
war  and  merely  sought  to  throw  the  moral  responsibility  on 
the  other  while  getting  the  advantage  of  actually  beginning 
hostilities.  It  is  a  case  where  each  will  strive  to  avoid  the 
specific  acts  of  war  that  may  involve  the  penalty.  The  reader 
may  have  seen,  in  a  country  where  personal  violence  is 
severely  punished,  two  men  shaking  their  fists  in  each  other's 
faces,  each  trying  to  provoke  the  other  to  strike  the  first 
blow,  and  no  fight  after  all. 

There  are  many  agreements  in  private  business  which  are 
not  easy  to  embody  in  formal  contracts;  agreements  where, 
as  in  this  case,  the  execution  of  the  terms  calls  for  immediate 
action,  and  where  redress  after  an  elaborate  trial  of  the  facts 
affords  no  real  reparation.  But,  if  the  object  sought  is  good, 
men  do  not  condemn  it  on  account  of  the  difficulty  in  de 
vising  provisions  that  will  accomplish  the  result  desired;  cer 
tainly  not  until  they  have  tried  to  devise  them.  It  may,  in 
deed,  prove  impossible  to  draft  a  code  of  specific  acts  that 
will  cover  the  ground ;  it  may  be  impracticable  to  draft  it  so 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE      219 

as  to  avoid  issues  of  fact  that  can  be  determined  only  after  a 
long  sifting  of  evidence  which  would  come  too  late;  but  surely 
that  is  no  reason  for  failure  to  make  the  attempt.  We  are  not 
making  a  treaty  among  nations.  We  are  merely  putting  for 
ward  a  suggestion  for  reducing  war  which  seems  to  merit 
consideration. 

A  second  difficulty  that  will  sometimes  arise  is  the  rule  of 
conduct  to  be  followed  pending  the  presentation  of  the  ques 
tion  to  the  international  tribunal.  The  continuance  or  ces 
sation  of  the  acts  complained  of  may  appear  to  be,  and  may 
even  be  in  fact,  more  important  than  the  final  decision. 
This  has  been  brought  to  our  attention  forcibly  by  the 
sinking  of  the  Lusitania.  We  should  have  no  objection  to 
submitting  to  arbitration  the  question  of  the  right  of  sub 
marines  to  torpedo  merchant  ships  without  warning,  pro 
vided  Germany  abandoned  the  practice  pending  the  arbi 
tration;  and  Germany  would  probably  have  no  objection  to 
submitting  the  question  to  a  tribunal  on  the  understanding 
that  the  practice  was  to  continue  until  the  decision  was  ren 
dered,  because  by  that  time  the  war  would  be  over.  This 
difficulty  is  inherent  in  every  plan  for  the  arbitration  of  in 
ternational  disputes,  although  more  serious  in  a  league  whose 
members  bind  themselves  to  prevent  by  force  the  outbreak 
of  war.  It  would  be  necessary  to  give  the  tribunal  summary 
authority  to  decree  a  modus  vivendi,  to  empower  it,  like  a 
court  of  equity,  to  issue  a  temporary  injunction. 

In  short,  the  proposal  for  a  league  to  enforce  peace  cannot 
meet  all  possible  contingencies.  It  cannot  prevent  all  future 
wars,  nor  does  any  sensible  person  believe  that  any  plan  can 
do  so  in  the  present  state  of  civilization.  But  it  can  prevent 
some  wars  that  would  otherwise  take  place,  and,  if  it  does 
that,  it  will  have  done  much  good. 

People  have  asked  how  such  a  league  would  differ  from 
the  Triple  Alliance  or  Triple  Entente,  whether  it  would  not 


220  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

be  nominally  a  combination  for  peace  which  might  have 
quite  a  different  effect.  But  in  fact  its  object  is  quite  con 
trary  to  those  alliances.  They  are  designed  to  protect  their 
members  against  outside  powers.  This  is  intended  to  insure 
peace  among  the  members  themselves.  If  it  grew  strong 
enough,  by  including  all  the  great  powers,  it  might  well  in 
sist  on  universal  peace  by  compelling  the  outsiders  to  come 
in.  But  that  is  not  its  primary  object,  which  is  simply  to  pre 
vent  its  members  from  going  to  war  with  one  another.  No 
doubt  if  several  great  nations,  and  some  of  the  smaller  ones, 
joined  it,  and  if  it  succeeded  in  preserving  constant  friendly 
relations  among  its  members,  there  would  grow  up  among 
them  a  sense  of  solidarity,  which  would  make  any  outside 
power  chary  of  attacking  one  of  them;  and,  what  is  more 
valuable,  would  make  outsiders  want  to  join  it.  But  there 
is  little  use  in  speculating  about  probabilities.  It  is  enough  if 
such  a  league  were  a  source  of  enduring  peace  among  its  own 
members. 

How  about  our  own  position  in  the  United  States?  The 
proposal  is  a  radical  and  subversive  departure  from  the  tra 
ditional  policy  of  our  country.  Would  it  be  wise  for  us  to  be 
parties  to  such  an  agreement?  At  the  threshold  of  such  a 
discussion  one  thing  is  clear.  If  we  are  not  willing  to  urge 
our  own  government  to  join  a  movement  for  peace,  we  have 
no  business  to  discuss  any  plan  for  the  purpose.  It  is  worse 
than  futile,  it  is  an  impertinence,  for  Americans  to  advise 
the  people  of  Europe  how  they  ought  to  conduct  their  affairs 
if  we  have  nothing  in  common  with  them ;  to  suggest  to  them 
conventions  with  burdens  which  are  well  enough  for  them, 
but  which  we  are  not  willing  to  share.  If  our  peace  organiza 
tions  are  not  prepared  to  have  us  take  part  in  the  plans  they 
devise,  they  had  better  disband,  or  confine  their  discussions 
to  Pan- American  questions. 
.  To  return  to  the  question;  would  it  be  wise  for  the  United 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE      221 

States  to  make  so  great  a  departure  from  its  traditional 
policy?  The  wisdom  of  consistency  lies  in  adherence  to  a 
principle  so  long  as  the  conditions  upon  which  it  is  based  re 
main  unchanged.  But  the  conditions  that  affect  the  relation 
of  America  to  Europe  have  changed  greatly  in  the  last  hun 
dred  and  twenty  years.  At  that  time  it  took  about  a  month 
to  cross  the  ocean  to  our  shores.  Ships  were  small  and  could 
carry  few  troops.  Their  guns  had  a  short  range.  No  country 
had  what  would  now  be  called  more  than  a  very  small  army; 
and  it  was  virtually  impossible  for  any  foreign  nation  to 
make  more  than  a  raid  upon  our  territory  before  we  could 
organize  and  equip  a  sufficient  force  to  resist,  however  un 
prepared  we  might  be  at  the  outset.  But  now,  by  the  im 
provements  in  machinery,  the  Atlantic  has  shrunk  to  a  lake, 
and  before  long  will  shrink  to  a  river.  Except  for  the  protec 
tion  of  the  navy,  and  perhaps  in  spite  of  it,  a  foreign  nation 
could  land  on  our  coast  an  army  of  such  a  size,  and  armed 
with  such  weapons,  that  unless  we  maintain  troops  several 
times  larger  than  our  present  forces,  we  should  be  quite 
unable  to  oppose  them  before  we  had  suffered  incalculable 
damage. 

It  is  all  very  well  to  assert  that  we  have  no  desire  to  quar 
rel  with  any  one,  or  any  one  with  us ;  but  good  intentions  in 
the  abstract,  even  if  accompanied  by  long-suffering  and  a  dis 
position  to  overlook  affronts,  will  not  always  keep  us  out  of 
strife.  When  a  number  of  great  nations  are  locked  in  a  death 
grapple  they  are  a  trifle  careless  of  the  rights  of  the  by 
stander.  Within  fifteen  years  of  Washington's  Farewell  Ad 
dress  we  were  drawn  into  the  wars  of  Napoleon,  and  a  sorry 
figure  we  made  for  the  most  part  of  the  fighting  on  land.  A 
hundred  years  later  our  relations  with  the  rest  of  the  world 
are  far  closer,  our  ability  to  maintain  a  complete  isolation 
far  less.  Except  by  colossal  self-deception  we  cannot  believe 
that  the  convulsions  of  Europe  do  not  affect  us  profoundly, 


222  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

that  wars  there  need  not  disturb  us,  that  we  are  not  in  danger 
of  being  drawn  into  them ;  or  even  that  we  may  not  some  day 
find  ourselves  in  the  direct  path  of  the  storm.  If  our  interest 
in  the  maintenance  of  peace  is  not  quite  so  strong  as  that  of 
some  other  nations,  it  is  certainly  strong  enough  to  warrant 
our  taking  steps  to  preserve  it,  even  to  the  point  of  joining  a 
league  to  enforce  it.  The  cost  of  the  insurance  is  well  worth 
the  security  to  us. 

If  mere  material  self-interest  would  indicate  such  a  course, 
there  are  other  reasons  to  confirm  it.  Civilization  is  to  some 
extent  a  common  heritage  which  it  is  worth  while  for  all 
nations  to  defend,  and  war  is  a  scourge  which  all  peoples 
should  use  every  rational  means  to  reduce.  If  the  family  of 
nations  can  by  standing  together  make  wars  less  frequent, 
it  is  clearly  their  duty  to  do  so,  and  in  such  a  body  we  do  not 
want  the  place  of  our  own  country  to  be  vacant. 

To  join  such  a  league  would  mean,  no  doubt,  a  larger  force 
of  men  trained  for  arms  in  this  country,  more  munitions  of 
war  on  hand,  and  better  means  of  producing  them  rapidly; 
for  although  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  members  of  the 
league  would  never  be  actually  called  upon  to  carry  out  their 
promise  to  fight,  they  ought  to  have  a  potential  force  for 
the  purpose.  But  in  any  case  this  country  ought  not  to  be 
so  little  prepared  for  an  emergency  as  it  is  to-day,  and  it 
would  require  to  be  less  fully  armed  if  it  joined  a  league 
pledged  to  protect  its  members  against  attack,  than  if  it 
stood  alone  and  unprotected.  In  fact  the  tendency  of  such 
a  league,  by  procuring  at  least  delay  before  the  outbreak  of 
hostilities,  would  be  to  lessen  the  need  of  preparation  for  im 
mediate  war,  and  thus  have  a  more  potent  effect  in  reducing 
armaments  than  any  formal  treaties,  whether  made  volun 
tarily  or  under  compulsion. 

The  proposal  for  a  league  to  enforce  peace  does  not 
conflict  with  plans  to  go  farther,  to  enforce  justice  among 


A  LEAGUE  TO  ENFORCE  PEACE      223 

nations  by  compelling  compliance  with  the  decisions  of  a 
tribunal  by  diplomatic,  economic  or  military  pressure.  Nor, 
on  the  other  hand,  does  it  imply  any  such  action,  or  inter 
fere  with  the  independence  or  sovereignty  of  states  except 
in  this  one  respect,  that  it  would  prohibit  any  member,  be 
fore  submitting  its  claims  to  arbitration,  from  making  war 
upon  another  on  pain  of  finding  itself  at  war  with  all  the 
rest.  The  proposal  is  only  a  suggestion,  defective  probably, 
crude  certainly,  but  if,  in  spite  of  that,  it  is  the  most  promis 
ing  plan  for  maintaining  peace  now  brought  forward,  it 
merits  sympathetic  consideration  both  here  and  abroad. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  AND  THE 

PROGRAM  OF  THE  LEAGUE  TO 

ENFORCE  PEACE  i 

BY  GEORGE  GRAFTON  WILSON 

THERE  have  been  some  arguments  against  the  platform 
of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  One  of  the  most  frequently 
advanced  of  these  arguments  is  that  the  carrying  out  of  the 
platform  of  the  league  would  violate  the  so-called  Monroe 
Doctrine.  These  words,  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  have  been 
used  to  designate  or  to  conceal  such  a  variety  of  ideas  and 
practices  that  it  is  necessary  to  start  with  some  premise  as 
to  what  the  Monroe  Doctrine  may  be. 

If  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is,  as  Professor  Bingham  says, 
an  "obsolete  shibboleth,"  it  is  clear  that  the  relation  of  the 
platform  of  the  league  to  the  content  of  the  doctrine  would 
be  one  of  historical  and  speculative  interest  only.  If  on  the 
other  hand  it  is,  as  M.  Petin  says,  the  substitution  by  the 
United  States  of  an  "American  law  for  the  general  law  of 
nations,"  the  relation  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  the  plat 
form  of  the  league  would  be  a  fundamental  question.  If 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  an  assertion  of  the  "supremacy  of 
the  United  States  in  the  Western  Hemisphere"  or  "suprem 
acy  in  political  leadership,"  there  would  also  be  reason  for 
careful  deliberation. 

1  This  paper,  by  the  Professor  of  International  Law  at  Harvard  Uni 
versity,  was  read  at  the  First  National  Assemblage  of  the  League  to  En 
force  Peace  at  Washington  on  May  26,  1916,  under  the  general  topic 
"  Practicability  of  the  League  Program."  Professor  Wilson  has  revised 
the  paper  for  inclusion  in  this  book. 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  225 

In  any  case,  a  careful  investigation  would  show  that  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  a  part  of  international  law.    The 
statement  of  the  doctrine  has  varied.    Early  discussions  in 
the  Cabinet  before  the  doctrine  was  set  forth  in  Monroe's 
Message  seem  to  have  been  as  lively  as  some  later  ones  upon 
the  same  subject.    Jefferson,  when  consulted  upon  the  ad 
visability  of  a  policy  which  would  not  "suffer  Europe  to 
intermeddle  with  cis- Atlantic  affairs,"  comparing  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence  with  this  doctrine,  said:  "That 
[the  Declaration]  made  us  a  nation,  this  sets  our  compass 
and  points  the  course  which  we  are  to  steer  through  the 
ocean  of  time  opening  on  us."  In  the  early  days  of  the  Mon 
roe  Doctrine  the  aim  was  to  avoid  further  European  inter 
ference  in  American  affairs.    Later,  particularly  from  the 
days  of  President  Polk,  the  doctrine  assumed  a  more  posi 
tive  fornw  Bismarck  is  reported  to  have  called  the  doctrine 
a  piece  of  "international  impertinence. y  In  1901  President 
Roosevelt  in  his  Annual  Message  declared:  "The  Monroe 
Doctrine  should  be  the  cardinal  feature  of  the  foreign  pol 
icy  of  all  the  nations  of  the  two  Americas,  as  it  is  of  the 
United  States,"  and  in  1904  he  said  that  "the  Monroe  Doc 
trine  may  force  the  United  States,  however  reluctantly,  in 
flagrant  cases  of  such  wrongdoing  or  impotence  to  the  exer 
cise  of  an  international  police  power."    President  Taft  in 
timated  in  his  Message  in  1909  that  "the  apprehension  which 
gave  rise  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  may  be  said  to  have  al 
ready  disappeared  and  neither  the  doctrine  as  it  exists  nor 
any  other  doctrine  of  American  policy  should  be  permitted 
to  operate  for  the  perpetuation  of  irresponsible  government, 
the  escape  of  just  obligations  or  the  insidious  allegation  of 
dominating  ambitions  on  the  part  of  the  United  States." 

The  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  gave  rise  to  new 
problems.  The  rumor  that  foreigners  were  making  purchases 
of  land  about  Magdalena  Bay  in  Mexico  led  to  pronounce- 


226  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

ments  in  the  United  States  Senate,  in  1912,  that  the  United 
States  could  not  view  foreign  possession  of  this  or  any  such 
harbor  "without  grave  concern,"  and  it  was  admitted  that 
this  is  a  "statement  of  policy,  allied  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine, 
of  course,  but  not  necessarily  dependent  upon  it  or  growing 
out  of  it." 

As  in  the  early  days  the  United  States  considered  it  within 
its  rights  to  assert  a  policy  defensive  in  its  nature,  but  for 
the  preservation  of  its  well-being,  so  in  later  days  the  same 
general  policy  has  taken  differing  forms.  President  Wilson 
early  in  his  Administration  endeavored  to  assure  the  Ameri 
cas  of  his  desire  for  the  cordial  cooperation  of  the  people  of 
the  different  nations,  and  a  little  later  he  asserted,  "we  are 
friends  of  constitutional  government  in  America;  we  are 
more  than  its  friends,  we  are  its  champions";  and,  in  the 
same  message,  he  declared  that  the  United  States  "must 
regard  it  as  one  of  the  duties  of  friendship  to  see  that  from 
no  quarter  are  material  interests  made  superior  to  human 
liberty  and  national  opportunity."  1  President  Roosevelt 
had  in  1901  asserted  that  the  doctrine  referred  not  merely  to 
European,  but  to  "any  non- American  power."  This  was 
recognized  abroad,  as  Sir  Edward  Grey  said  in  1911  of  the 
United  States:  "They  had  a  policy  associated  with  the  name 
of  Monroe,  the  cardinal  point  of  which  was  that  no  European 
or  non-American  nation  should  acquire  fresh  territory  on 
the  continent  of  America." 

In  December,  1913,  Mr.  Page,  the  American  Ambassador 
to  Great  Britain,  announced  a  late  form  of  policy,  saying: 
"We  have  now  developed  subtler  ways  than  taking  their 
lands.  There  is  the  taking  of  their  bonds,  for  instance. 
Therefore,  the  important  proposition  is  that  no  sort  of 
financial  control  can,  without  the  consent  of  the  United 

1  Since  this  paper  was  written  President  Wilson  has  proposed  a  "  Mon 
roe  Doctrine  for  the  whole  world."  [Author's  note.] 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  227 

States,  be  obtained  over  these  weaker  nations  which  would 
in  effect  control  their  government." 

These  and  many  other  views  as  to  the  significance  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  show  the  varying  forms  in  which  the  United 
States  has  stated  its  opposition  to  the  permanent  occupation 
of  territory  or  acquisition  of  political  control  in  the  American 
hemisphere  by  non-American  powers.  It  has  seemed  neces 
sary  to  present  these  differing  ideas  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
to  show  that  it  is  not  law  and  to  show  that,  as  a  manifesta 
tion  of  policy,  it  is  not  set  forth  in  any  single  formula. 

As  single  nations  and  as  groups  of  nations  have  policies 
which  vary  in  different  parts  of  the  world,  and  as  the  con 
flict  of  policies  rather  than  the  violation  of  established  law 
is  the  frequent  cause  of  international  differences,  it  is  evident 
that,  if  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  cannot  provide  any  aid 
in  case  of  conflict  of  policies,  its  function  will  be  compara- 
tivety  restricted.  The  conflict  of  policy  would  rarely  take  a 
form  which  would  make  justiciable  methods  practicable  as 
a  means  to  settlement. 

This  being  the  case,  reference  of  such  matters  wrould  be  to 
the  council  of  conciliation  provided  for  in  the  second  article 
of  the  platform  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace.  The  first 
article  provides  for  justiciable  questions  and  the  second 
states : — 

All  other  questions  arising  between  the  signatories  and  not 
settled  by  negotiation  shall  be  submitted  to  a  council  of  concilia 
tion  for  hearing,  consideration  and  recommendation. 

Here  it  should  be  repeated  that  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace 
does  not  bind  itself  to  carry  out  the  recommendation  which 
the  council  of  conciliation  may  make  but  merely  binds  itself 
to  see  that  no  power  goes  to  war  over  such  a  matter  until 
the  question  has  been  submitted. 

The  conflicts  of  policy  would,  in  most  cases,  be  settled 


228  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

by  ordinary  diplomatic  negotiations  between  the  parties 
concerned.  Even  the  Hague  Conventions  of  1899  and  of 
1907  for  the  Pacific  Settlement  of  International  Disputes, 
ratified  by  twenty-seven  or  more  of  the  leading  states  of  the 
world,  provide  that,  "in  case  of  serious  disagreement  or  dis 
pute,  before  an  appeal  to  arms,  the  signatory  powers  agree 
to  have  recourse,  as  far  as  circumstances  allow,  to  the  good 
offices  or  mediation  of  one  or  more  friendly  powers"  (Art.  2). 
The  Convention  of  1907  deems  it  "expedient  and  desirable 
that  one  or  more  powers,  strangers  to  the  dispute,  should,  on 
their  own  initiative,"  tender  such  good  offices.  The  United 
States,  however,  in  signing  this  Convention  made  reserva 
tion  that  "nothing  contained  in  this  Convention  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  require  the  United  States  of  America  to  de 
part  from  its  traditional  policy  of  not  intruding  upon,  inter 
fering  with,  or  entangling  itself  in  political  questions  or  pol 
icy  or  internal  administration  of  any  foreign  state;  nor  shall 
anything  contained  in  the  said  Convention  be  construed  to 
imply  a  relinquishment  by  the  United  States  of  America  of 
its  traditional  attitude  toward  purely  American  questions." 
The  United  States  has,  however,  also  within  recent  years, 
particularly  since  1913,  become  a  party  to  numerous  trea 
ties  in  which  "the  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  all 
disputes  between  them,  of  every  nature  whatsoever,  to  the 
settlement  of  which  previous  arbitration  treaties  or  agree 
ments  do  not  apply  in  their  terms  or  are  not  applied  in  fact, 
shall,  when  diplomatic  methods  of  adjustment  have  failed, 
be  referred  for  investigation  and  report  to  an  international 
commission";  and  "they  agree  not  to  declare  war  or  begin 
hostilities  during  such  investigation  and  before  the  report  is 
submitted."  The  report  shall  be  presented  in  the  maximum 
period  of  one  year,  but  "the  high  contracting  parties,  by 
mutual  accord,  may  shorten  or  extend  this  period."  Some 
of  these  treaties  are  to  remain  effective  for  five  years  from 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  229 

the  date  of  ratification  and  then  till  twelve  months  from 
notice  of  intention  to  terminate  the  treaty.  These  treaties 
have  still  some  time  to  run.  Plainly,  therefore,  the  United 
States  is  bound  already,  possibly  in  some  cases  under  the 
Hague  Convention  and  certainly  under  these  other  treaties, 
of  which  there  are  a  large  number,  to  submit  disputes  even 
involving  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  a  body  which  would  meet 
the  requirements  of  the  platform  of  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace.  These  treaties  are  with  France,  Great  Britain,  and 
Russia,  as  well  as  with  other  European  States  and  with 
South  and  Central  American  States.  The  President,  in  pro 
claiming  these  treaties,  declares  that  he  has  "caused  the 
said  treaty  to  be  made  public,  to  the  end  that  the  same  and 
every  article  and  clause  thereof  may  be  observed  and  ful 
filled  with  good  faith  by  the  United  States  and  by  the  citi 
zens  thereof." 

A  dispute  in  regard  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  or  involving 
its  principles,  whatever  they  may  be,  would  surely  be  in 
cluded  in  the  agreement  made  by  the  United  States  to  refer 
disputes  "of  every  nature  whatsoever"  to  an  international 
commission  for  investigation  and  report.  This  principle  has 
had  endorsement  by  leaders  in  preceding  Administrations 
as  well  as  in  the  action  upon  these  treaties  by  the  present 
Administration,  and  is  therefore  not  to  be  regarded  as  em 
bodying  partisan  policies.  The  United  States  is  already 
bound  to  act  as  regards  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  disputes 
which  may  arise  with  most  states  in  a  fashion  in  exact  accord 
with  the  second  article  of  the  platform  of  the  League  to  En 
force  Peace.  The  aim  of  the  league  is  secured  when  the  ques 
tion  which  negotiation  has  been  unable  to  settle  is  sub 
mitted  "for  hearing,  consideration  and  recommendation," 
and  it  makes  little  difference  whether  the  body  to  which  it 
is  submitted  is  called  an  "international  commission"  or  a 
"council  of  conciliation." 


230  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

If,  then,  the  United  States  and  thirty  or  more  nations  are 
already  bound  to  the  principle  of  the  second  article  of  the 
league's  platform  so  far  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  other 
matters  are  subjects  of  dispute,  there  would  seem  to  be  no 
reason  for  raising  the  question  of  the  practicability  of  that 
part  of  the  program  at  the  present  time.  Its  practicability 
has  already  been  formally  declared,  and,  as  embodied  in 
treaty  provisions,  is  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land. 

Any  further  discussion  as  to  the  practicability  of  the  ap 
plication  of  the  league's  program  to  differences  arising  in 
regard  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  would  involve  the  question 
as  to  whether  treaties  already  made  will  be  observed  when 
put  to  the  test.  Put  concretely,  the  question  may  be,  will 
the  United  States,  which  has  made  treaties  with  certain 
states  agreeing  to  submit  to  an  international  commission 
disputes  "of  every  nature  whatsoever,"  find  it  practicable 
to  submit  a  dispute  arising  in  regard  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
to  such  a  commission,  or  will  the  United  States  disregard  the 
treaty,  and  did  the  United  States  so  intend  in  making  the 
treaty.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  and  it  must  be  believed,  that  these 
treaties  were  made  in  good  faith  and  that  the  parties  to  the 
treaties  intend  to  observe  their  provisions.  It  has  even  been 
announced  that  the  United  States  proposes  to  observe  in 
principle  toward  other  nations  not  parties  to  such  treaties 
the  conduct  prescribed  in  these  treaties.  These  treaties  are 
called  treaties  for  the  "Advancement  of  Peace"  and  declare 
as  their  object  "to  contribute  to  the  development  of  the 
spirit  of  universal  peace"  or  "to  serve  the  cause  of  general 
peace."  Accordingly,  the  enforcement  of  these  treaties  is 
regarded  by  these  states  as  at  least  desirable  for  the  sake 
of  peace. 

Under  the  general  practice  and  law  of  nations  the  viola 
tion  of  a  treaty  may  be  a  just  cause  of  war.  If  this  be  so, 
then  it  is  particularly  essential  that  treaties  for  "the  de- 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  231 

velopment  of  the  spirit  of  universal  peace"  be  kept.  It 
would  seem  to  be  a  simple  proposition  that  the  greater  the 
risk  of  violation  of  a  treaty  the  less  ready  a  state  will  be  to 
violate  the  treaty.  This  principle  generally  prevails,  though 
at  times  states  disregard  all  risks.  If  there  is  behind  a  treaty 
the  compelling  force  of  the  fact  of  a  signed  agreement  and 
the  physical  resources  of  the  other  signatory  only,  the  fact 
of  the  agreement  seems  often,  even  in  modern  times,  to  have 
had  little  weight,  and  the  sole  deterrent  seems  to  have  been 
the  physical  power  which  might  be  felt  if  the  agreement  was 
not  observed.  This  has  given  rise  to  the  maxim  often  quoted 
that  "a  treaty  is  as  strong  as  the  force  behind  it."  There  is 
undoubtedly  some  truth  in  the  maxim.  The  program  of 
the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  proposes  to  adopt  what  is  bene 
ficial  in  the  maxim  and  to  put  behind  treaties  a  degree  of 
force  which  weak  states  might  by  themselves  be  unable  to 
command.  If,  under  the  provision  by  which  the  United 
States  and  other  states  have  agreed  to  refer  to  an  interna 
tional  commission  all  differences,  there  is  a  reservation  as 
regards  matters  affecting  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  this  reser 
vation  is  not  expressed  or  implied. 

There  has  been  for  many  years  evidence  that  treaties 
needed  behind  them  some  sanction.  The  one  sanction  which 
all  nations  recognize  is  that  of  force,  whether  it  be  economic, 
physical  or  other  force.  By  the  state  which  scrupulously 
observes  its  treaty  engagements  this  force  is  never  felt  or 
feared.  By  the  state  that  is  not  considerate  of  its  treaty 
obligations  this  force  is  feared  and  may  be  felt.  The  state 
that  proposed  to  observe  its  international  obligations  would 
seem  to  have  almost  a  right  to  demand  that  it  be  secured 
against  violation  of  its  rights  by  a  party  which  has  agreed 
by  treaty  to  observe  them,  particularly  when  the  party 
which  observes  its  international  obligations  has,  in  reliance 
upon  the  promise  of  the  other  party,  refrained  from  building 


232  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

up  a  force  to  inspire  fear  in  that  party.  All  that  a  state  can 
reasonably  demand  is  that  its  side  of  a  controversy  be  heard 
and  considered  impartially.  The  League  to  Enforce  Peace 
proposes  to  secure  such  hearing  and  consideration  for  both 
parties  but  beyond  that  does  not  propose  to  go,  even  if  the 
subject  of  the  controversy  be  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Further,  it  may  be  said  if,  when  in  dispute,  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  as  applied  by  the  United  States  is  not  a  policy  upon 
which  the  United  States  is  willing  to  await  hearing,  con 
sideration  and  recommendation,  then  the  United  States  has 
not  acted  in  good  faith  in  signing  these  recent  treaties;  and 
it  may  also  be  said,  if  the  American  policy  as  embodied  in 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  will  not  stand  the  test  of  investigation 
and  consideration,  that  it  is  time  for  the  United  States  to  be 
determining  why  it  should  longer  give  to  the  doctrine  its 
support. 

As  the  plan  of  the  league  for  submission  of  controversies 
such  as  might  arise  over  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has,  on  the 
initiative  of  the  United  States,  already  been  embodied  in 
treaties  with  a  greater  part  of  the  states  of  the  world,  such 
a  plan  cannot  be  regarded  as  impracticable  without  condem 
nation  of  the  judgment  of  those  who  are  in  control  of  the 
affairs  of  the  world,  and  this  judgment  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  having  the  well-being  of  the  world  in  view,  does  not 
criticize  and  condemn,  but  supports  and  commends. 


THE  CONDITIONS  OF  PEACE  1 
WOODROW  WILSON 

GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  SENATE  :  On  the  18th  of  December  last 
I  addressed  an  identic  note  to  the  Governments  of  the  na 
tions  now  at  war,  requesting  them  to  state,  more  definitely 
than  they  had  yet  been  stated  by  either  group  of  belliger 
ents,  the  terms  upon  which  they  would  deem  it  possible  to 
make  peace.  I  spoke  on  behalf  of  humanity  and  of  the  rights 
of  all  neutral  nations  like  our  own,  many  of  whose  most  vital 
interests  the  war  puts  in  constant  jeopardy. 

The  Central  Powers  united  in  a  reply  which  stated  merely 
that  they  were  ready  to  meet  their  antagonists  in  confer 
ence  to  discuss  terms  of  peace. 

The  Entente  Powers  have  replied  much  more  definitely, 
and  have  stated,  in  general  terms,  indeed,  but  with  sufficient 
definiteness  to  imply  details,  the  arrangements,  guarantees, 
and  acts  of  reparation  which  they  deem  to  be  the  indispen 
sable  conditions  of  a  satisfactory  settlement. 

We  are  that  much  nearer  a  definite  discussion  of  the  peace 
which  shall  end  the  present  war.  We  are  that  much  nearer 
the  discussion  of  the  international  concert  which  must  there 
after  hold  the  world  at  peace.  In  every  discussion  of  the 
peace  that  must  end  this  war  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  that 
peace  must  be  followed  by  some  definite  concert  of  power, 
which  will  make  it  virtually  impossible  that  any  such  catas 
trophe  should  ever  overwhelm  us  again.  Every  lover  of 
mankind,  every  sane  and  thoughtful  man,  must  take  that 
for  granted. 

1  Address  to  the  Senate,  January  22,  1917. 


234  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

I  have  sought  this  opportunity  to  address  you  because  I 
thought  that  I  owed  it  to  you,  as  the  council  associated  with 
me  in  the  final  determination  of  our  international  obliga 
tions,  to  disclose  to  you  without  reserve  the  thought  and 
purpose  that  have  been  taking  form  in  my  mind  in  regard  to 
the  duty  of  our  Government  in  those  days  to  come  when  it 
will  be  necessary  to  lay  afresh  and  upon  a  new  plan  the  foun 
dations  of  peace  among  the  nations. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
should  play  no  part  in  that  great  enterprise.  To  take  part  in 
such  a  service  will  be  the  opportunity  for  which  they  have 
sought  to  prepare  themselves  by  the  very  principles  and 
purposes  of  their  polity  and  the  approved  practices  of  their 
Government,  ever  since  the  days  when  they  set  up  a  new 
nation  in  the  high  and  honorable  hope  that  it  might  in  all 
that  it  was  and  did  show  mankind  the  way  to  liberty.  They 
cannot,  in  honor,  withhold  the  service  to  which  they  are  now 
about  to  be  challenged.  They  do  not  wish  to  withhold  it. 
But  they  owe  it  to  themselves  and  to  the  other  nations  of  the 
world  to  state  the  conditions  under  which  they  will  feel  free 
to  render  it. 

That  service  is  nothing  less  than  this  —  to  add  their  au 
thority  and  their  power  to  the  authority  and  force  of  other 
nations  to  guarantee  peace  and  justice  throughout  the  world. 
Such  a  settlement  cannot  now  be  long  postponed.  It  is 
right  that  before  it  comes  this  Government  should  frankly 
formulate  the  conditions  upon  which  it  would  feel  justified 
in  asking  our  people  to  approve  its  formal  and  solemn  ad 
herence  to  a  league  for  peace.  I  am  here  to  attempt  to  state 
those  conditions. 

The  present  war  must  first  be  ended,  but  we  owe  it  to 
candor  and  to  a  just  regard  for  the  opinion  of  mankind  to 
say  that,  so  far  as  our  participation  in  guarantees  of  future 
peace  is  concerned,  it  makes  a  great  deal  of  difference  in 


CONDITIONS  OF  PEACE  235 

what  way  and  upon  what  terms  it  is  ended.  The  treaties 
and  agreements  which  bring  it  to  an  end  must  embody  terms 
which  will  create  a  peace  that  is  worth  guaranteeing  and 
preserving,  a  peace  that  will  win  the  approval  of  mankind, 
not  merely  a  peace  that  will  serve  the  several  interests  and 
immediate  aims  of  the  nations  engaged. 

We  shall  have  no  voice  in  determining  what  those  terms 
shall  be,  but  we  shall,  I  feel  sure,  have  a  voice  in  determin 
ing  whether  they  shall  be  made  lasting  or  not  by  the  guaran 
tees  of  a  universal  covenant,  and  our  judgment  upon  what 
is  fundamental  and  essential  as  a  condition  precedent  to 
permanency  should  be  spoken  now,  not  afterward,  when  it 
may  be  too  late. 

No  covenant  of  cooperative  peace  that  does  not  include 
the  peoples  of  the  new  world  can  suffice  to  keep  the  future 
safe  against  war,  and  yet  there  is  only  one  sort  of  peace  that 
the  peoples  of  America  could  join  in  guaranteeing. 

The  elements  of  that  peace  must  be  elements  that  engage 
the  confidence  and  satisfy  the  principles  of  the  American 
Governments,  elements  consistent  with  their  political  faith 
and  the  practical  conviction  which  the  peoples  of  America 
have  once  for  all  embraced  and  undertaken  to  defend. 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  any  American  Government 
would  throw  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  any  terms  of  peace 
the  Governments  now  at  war  might  agree  upon,  or  seek  to 
upset  them  when  made,  whatever  they  might  be.  I  only 
take  it  for  granted  that  mere  terms  of  peace  between  the 
belligerents  will  not  satisfy  even  the  belligerents  themselves. 
Mere  agreements  may  not  make  peace  secure.  It  will  be 
absolutely  necessary  that  a  force  be  created  as  a  guarantor 
of  the  permanency  of  the  settlement  so  much  greater  than 
the  force  of  any  nation  now  engaged  or  any  alliance  hitherto 
formed  or  projected,  that  no  nation,  no  probable  combina 
tion  of  nations,  could  face  or  withstand  it.  If  the  peace  pres- 


236  AMERICA*^  FOREIGN  POLICY 

ently  to  be  made  is  to  endure,  it  must  be  a  peace  made  secure 
by  the  organized  major  force  of  mankind. 

The  terms  of  the  immediate  peace  agreed  upon  will  de 
termine  whether  it  is  a  peace  for  which  such  a  guarantee  can 
be  secured.  The  question  upon  which  the  whole  future  peace 
and  policy  of  the  world  depends  is  this :  — 

Is  the  present  war  a  struggle  for  a  just  and  secure  peace 
or  only  for  a  new  balance  of  power?  If  it  be  only  a  struggle 
for  a  new  balance  of  power,  who  will  guarantee,  who  can 
guarantee,  the  stable  equilibrium  of  the  new  arrangement? 
Only  a  tranquil  Europe  can  be  a  stable  Europe.  There  must 
be  not  only  a  balance  of  power,  but  a  community  of  power; 
not  organized  rivalries,  but  an  organized  common  peace. 

Fortunately,  we  have  received  very  explicit  assurances  on 
this  point.  The  statesmen  of  both  of  the  groups  of  nations, 
now  arrayed  against  one  another,  have  said,  in  terms  that 
could  not  be  misinterpreted,  that  it  was  no  part  of  the  pur 
pose  they  had  in  mind  to  crush  their  antagonists.  But  the 
implication  of  these  assurances  may  not  be  equally  clear  to 
all,  may  not  be  the  same  on  both  sides  of  the  water.  I  think 
it  will  be  serviceable  if  I  attempt  to  set  forth  what  we  under 
stand  them  to  be. 

They  imply,  first  of  all,  that  it  must  be  a  peace  without 
victory.  It  is  not  pleasant  to  say  this.  I  beg  that  I  may  be 
permitted  to  put  my  own  interpretation  upon  it  and  that  it 
may  be  understood  that  no  other  interpretation  was  in  my 
thought.  I  am  seeking  only  to  face  realities  and  to  face  them 
without  soft  concealments.  Victory  would  mean  peace 
forced  upon  the  loser,  a  victor's  terms  imposed  upon  the  van 
quished.  It  would  be  accepted  in  humiliation,  under  duress, 
at  an  intolerable  sacrifice,  and  would  leave  a  sting,  a  resent 
ment,  a  bitter  memory,  upon  which  terms  of  peace  would 
rest,  not  permanently,  but  only  as  upon  quicksand. 

Only  a  peace  between  equals  can  last;  only  a  peace  the 


CONDITIONS  OF  PEACE  237 

very  principle  of  which  is  equality  and  a  common  participa 
tion  in  a  common  benefit.  The  right  state  of  mind,  the  right 
feeling,  between  nations,  is  as  necessary  for  a  lasting  peace 
as  is  the  just  settlement  of  vexed  questions  of  territory  or  of 
racial  and  national  allegiance. 

The  equality  of  nations  upon  which  peace  must  be  founded, 
if  it  is  to  last,  must  be  an  equality  of  rights ;  the  guarantees 
exchanged  must  neither  recognize  nor  imply  a  difference  be 
tween  big  nations  and  small,  between  those  that  are  power 
ful  and  those  that  are  weak.  Right  must  be  based  upon  the 
common  strength,  not  upon  the  individual  strength,  of  the 
nations  upon  whose  concert  peace  will  depend. 

Equality  of  territory,  of  resources,  there,  of  course,  cannot, 
be;  nor  any  other  sort  of  equality  not  gained  in  the  ordinary 
peaceful  and  legitimate  development  of  the  peoples  them 
selves.  But  no  one  asks  or  expects  anything  more  than  an 
equality  of  rights.  Mankind  is  looking  now  for  freedom  of 
life,  not  for  equipoises  of  power. 

And  there  is  a  deeper  thing  involved  than  even  equality  of 
rights  among  organized  nations.  No  peace  can  last,  or  ought 
to  last,  which  does  not  recognize  and  accept  the  principle 
that  Governments  derive  all  their  just  powers  from  the  con 
sent  of  the  governed,  and  that  no  right  anywhere  exists  to 
hand  peoples  about  from  sovereignty  to  sovereignty  as  if 
they  were  property. 

I  take  it  for  granted,  for  instance,  if  I  may  venture  upon 
a  single  example,  that  statesmen  everywhere  are  agreed  that 
there  should  be  a  united,  independent,  and  autonomous 
Poland,  and  that  henceforth  inviolable  security  of  life,  of 
worship,  and  of  industrial  and  social  development  should  be 
guaranteed  to  all  peoples  who  have  lived  hitherto  under  the 
power  of  Governments  devoted  to  a  faith  and  purpose  hostile 
to  their  own. 

I  speak  of  this  not  because  of  any  desire  to  exalt  an  ab- 


238  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

stract  political  principle  which  has  always  been  held  very 
dear  by  those  who  have  sought  to  build  up  liberty  in  Amer 
ica,  but  for  the  same  reason  that  I  have  spoken  of  the  other 
conditions  of  peace,  which  seem  to  me  clearly  indispensable 
—  because  I  wish  frankly  to  uncover  realities.  Any  peace 
which  does  not  recognize  and  accept  this  principle  will  in 
evitably  be  upset.  It  will  not  rest  upon  the  affections  or  the 
convictions  of  mankind.  The  ferment  of  spirit  of  whole  popu 
lations  will  fight  subtly  and  constantly  against  it,  and  all  the 
world  will  sympathize.  The  world  can  be  at  peace  only  if  its 
life  is  stable,  and  there  can  be  no  stability  where  the  will  is  in 
rebellion,  where  there  is  not  tranquillity  of  spirit  and  a  sense 
of  justice,  of  freedom,  and  of  right. 

So  far  as  practicable,  moreover,  every  great  people  now 
struggling  toward  a  full  development  of  its  resources  and  of 
its  powers  should  be  assured  a  direct  outlet  to  the  great  high 
ways  of  the  sea.  Where  this  cannot  be  done  by  the  cession 
of  territory  it  can  no  doubt  be  done  by  the  neutralization  of 
direct  rights  of  way  under  the  general  guarantee  which  will 
assure  the  peace  itself.  With  a  right  comity  of  arrangement 
no  nation  need  be  shut  away  from  free  access  to  the  open 
paths  of  the  world's  commerce. 

And  the  paths  of  the  sea  must  alike  in  law  and  in  fact  be 
free.  The  freedom  of  the  seas  is  the  sine  qua  non  of  peace, 
equality,  and  cooperation.  No  doubt  a  somewhat  radical 
reconsideration  of  many  of  the  rules  of  international  prac 
tice  hitherto  sought  to  be  established  may  be  necessary  in 
order  to  make  the  seas  indeed  free  and  common  in  practi 
cally  all  circumstances  for  the  use  of  mankind,  but  the  mo 
tive  for  such  changes  is  convincing  and  compelling.  There 
can  be  no  trust  or  intimacy  between  the  peoples  of  the  world 
without  them. 

The  free,  constant,  unthreatened  intercourse  of  nations 
is  an  essential  part  of  the  process  of  peace  and  of  develop- 


CONDITIONS  OF  PEACE  239 

ment.  It  need  not  be  difficult  to  define  or  to  secure  the  free 
dom  of  the  seas  if  the  Governments  of  the  world  sincerely 
desire  to  come  to  an  agreement  concerning  it. 

It  is  a  problem  closely  connected  with  the  limitation  of 
naval  armaments  and  the  cooperation  of  the  navies  of  the 
world  in  keeping  the  seas  at  once  free  and  safe. 

And  the  question  of  limiting  naval  armaments  opens  the 
wider  and  perhaps  more  difficult  question  of  the  limitation  of 
armies  and  of  all  programs  of  military  preparation.  Diffi 
cult  and  delicate  as  those  questions  are,  they  must  be  faced 
with  the  utmost  candor  and  decided  in  a  spirit  of  real  ac 
commodation  if  peace  is  to  come  with  healing  in  its  wings 
and  come  to  stay. 

Peace  cannot  be  had  without  concession  and  sacrifice. 
There  can  be  no  sense  of  safety  and  equality  among  the 
nations  if  great  preponderating  armies  are  henceforth  to 
continue  here  and  there  to  be  built  up  and  maintained.  The 
statesmen  of  the  world  must  plan  for  peace  and  nations  must 
adjust  and  accommodate  their  policy  to  it  as  they  have 
planned  for  war  and  made  ready  for  pitiless  contest  and 
rivalry.  The  question  of  armaments,  whether  on  land  or 
sea,  is  the  most  immediately  and  intensely  practical  ques 
tion  connected  with  the  future  fortunes  of  nations  and  of 
mankind. 

I  have  spoken  upon  these  great  matters  without  reserve 
and  with  the  utmost  explicitness  because  it  has  seemed  to  me 
to  be  necessary  if  the  world's  yearning  desire  for  peace  was 
anywhere  to  find  free  voice  and  utterance.  Perhaps  I  am 
the  only  person  in  high  authority  among  all  the  peoples  of 
the  world  who  is  at  liberty  to  speak  and  hold  nothing  back. 
I  am  speaking  as  an  individual,  and  yet  I  am  speaking  also, 
of  course,  as  the  responsible  head  of  a  great  Government, 
and  I  feel  confident  that  I  have  said  what  the  people  of  the 
United  States  would  wish  me  to  say. 


240  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

May  I  not  add  that  I  hope  and  believe  that  I  am,  in  effect, 
speaking  for  liberals  and  friends  of  humanity  in  every  nation 
and  of  every  program  of  liberty?  I  would  fain  believe  that 
I  am  speaking  for  the  silent  mass  of  mankind  everywhere 
who  have  as  yet  had  no  place  or  opportunity  to  speak  their 
real  hearts  out  concerning  the  death  and  ruin  they  see  to 
have  come  already  upon  the  persons  and  the  homes  they 
hold  most  dear. 

And  in  holding  out  the  expectation  that  the  people  and 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  join  the  other 
civilized  nations  of  the  world  in  guaranteeing  the  perma 
nence  of  peace  upon  such  terms  as  I  have  named,  I  speak 
with  the  greater  boldness  and  confidence  because  it  is  clear  to 
every  man  who  can  think  that  there  is  in  this  promise  no 
breach  in  either  our  traditions  or  our  policy  as  a  nation,  but 
a  fulfillment  rather  of  all  that  we  have  professed  or  striven 
for. 

I  am  proposing,  as  it  were,  that  the  nations  should  with 
one  accord  adopt  the  doctrine  of  President  Monroe  as  the 
doetrine  of  the  world :  That  no  nation  should  seek  to  extend 
its  policy  over  any  other  nation  or  people,  but  that  every 
people  should  be  left  free  to  determine  its  own  policy,  its 
own  way  of  development,  unhindered,  unthreatened,  un 
afraid,  the  little  along  with  the  great  and  powerful. 

I  am  proposing  that  all  nations  henceforth  avoid  entan 
gling  alliances  which  would  draw  them  into  competition  of 
power,  catch  them  in  a  net  of  intrigue  and  selfish  rivalry,  and 
disturb  their  own  affairs  with  influences  intruded  from  with 
out.  There  is  no  entangling  alliance  in  a  concert  of  power. 
When  all  unite  to  act  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same 
purpose,  all  act  in  the  common  interest  and  are  free  to  live 
their  own  lives  under  a  common  protection. 

I  am  proposing  government  by  the  consent  of  the  gov 
erned;  that  freedom  of  the  seas  which  in  international  con- 


CONDITIONS  OF  PEACE  241 

fcrence  after  conference  representatives  of  the  United  States 
have  urged  with  the  eloquence  of  those  who  are  the  con 
vinced  disciples  of  liberty;  and  that  moderation  of  arma 
ments  which  makes  of  armies  and  navies  a  power  for  order 
merely,  not  an  instrument  of  aggression  or  of  selfish  violence. 
These  are  American  principles,  American  policies.  We 
can  stand  for  no  others.  And  they  are  also  the  principles  and 
policies  of  forward-looking  men  and  women  everywhere, 
of  every  modern  nation,  of  every  enlightened  community. 
They  are  the  principles  of  mankind  and  must  prevail. 


WAR   FOR   DEMOCRACY  AND   PEACE.1 

WOODROW  WILSON 

GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  CONGRESS:  I  have  called  the  Con 
gress  into  extraordinary  session  because  there  are  serious, 
very  serious,  choices  of  policy  to  be  made,  and  made  im 
mediately,  which  it  was  neither  right  nor  constitutionally 
permissible  that  I  should  assume  the  responsibility  of  mak 
ing. 

On  the  3d  of  February  last  I  officially  laid  before  you  the 
extraordinary  announcement  of  the  Imperial  German  Gov 
ernment  that  on  and  after  the  first  day  of  February  it  was 
its  purpose  to  put  aside  all  restraints  of  law  or  of  humanity 
and  use  its  submarines  to  sink  every  vessel  that  sought  to 
approach  either  the  ports  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  or 
the  western  coasts  of  Europe  or  any  of  the  ports  controlled 
by  the  enemies  of  Germany  within  the  Mediterranean.  That 
had  seemed  to  be  the  object  of  the  German  submarine  war 
fare  earlier  in  the  war,  but  since  April  of  last  year  the  Im 
perial  Government  had  somewhat  restrained  the  command 
ers  of  its  undersea  craft,  in  conformity  with  its  promise,  then 
given  to  us,  that  passenger  boats  should  not  be  sunk  and 
that  due  warning  would  be  given  to  all  other  vessels  which 
its  submarines  might  seek  to  destroy,  when  no  resistance 
was  offered  or  escape  attempted,  and  care  taken  that  their 
crews  were  given  at  least  a  fair  chance  to  save  their  lives  in 
their  open  boats.  The  precautions  taken  were  meagre  and 
haphazard  enough,  as  was  proved  in  distressing  instance 

1  The  War  Message  was  read  by  the  President  before  a  joint  session  of 
the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives,  April  2,  1917. 


WAR  FOR  DEMOCRACY  AND  PEACE  243 

after  instance  in  the  progress  of  the  cruel  and  unmanly  busi 
ness,  but  a  certain  degree  of  restraint  was  observed. 

The  new  policy  has  swept  every  restriction  aside.  Vessels 
of  every  kind,  whatever  their  flag,  their  character,  their 
cargo,  their  destination,  their  errand,  have  been  ruthlessly 
sent  to  the  bottom  without  warning  and  without  thought  of 
help  or  mercy  for  those  on  board,  the  vessels  of  friendly  neu 
trals  along  with  those  of  belligerents.  Even  hospital  ships 
and  ships  carrying  relief  to  the  sorely  bereaved  and  stricken 
people  of  Belgium,  though  the  latter  were  provided  with 
safe  conduct  through  the  proscribed  areas  by  the  German 
Government  itself  and  were  distinguished  by  unmistakable 
marks  of  identity,  have  been  sunk  with  the  same  reckless 
lack  of  compassion  or  of  principle. 

I  was  for  a  little  while  unable  to  believe  that  such  things 
would  in  fact  be  done  by  any  Government  that  had  hitherto 
subscribed  to  humane  practices  of  civilized  nations.  Inter 
national  law  had  its  origin  in  the  attempt  to  set  up  some  law 
which  would  be  respected  and  observed  upon  the  seas,  where 
no  nation  has  right  of  dominion  and  where  lay  the  free  high 
ways  of  the  world.  By  painful  stage  after  stage  has  that  law 
been  built  up,  with  meagre  enough  results,  indeed,  after  all 
was  accomplished  that  could  be  accomplished,  but  always 
with  a  clear  view,  at  least,  of  what  the  heart  and  conscience 
of  mankind  demanded. 

This  minimum  of  right  the  German  Government  has 
swept  aside,  under  the  plea  of  retaliation  and  necessity  and 
because  it  had  no  weapons  which  it  could  use  at  sea  except 
these,  which  it  is  impossible  to  employ,  as  it  is  employing 
them,  without  throwing  to  the  wind  all  scruples  of  humanity 
or  of  respect  for  the  understandings  that  were  supposed  to 
underlie  the  intercourse  of  the  world. 

I  am  not  now  thinking  of  the  loss  of  property  involved, 
immense  and  serious  as  that  is,  but  only  of  the  wanton  and 


244  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

wholesale  destruction  of  the  lives  of  noncombatants,  men, 
women,  and  children,  engaged  in  pursuits  which  have  al 
ways,  even  in  the  darkest  periods  of  modern  history,  been 
deemed  innocent  and  legitimate.  Property  can  be  paid  for; 
the  lives  of  peaceful  and  innocent  people  cannot  be. 

The  present  German  submarine  warfare  against  com 
merce  is  a  warfare  against  mankind.  It  is  a  war  against 
all  nations.  American  ships  have  been  sunk,  American  lives 
taken,  in  ways  which  it  has  stirred  us  very  deeply  to  learn 
of,  but  the  ships  and  people  of  other  neutral  and  friendly 
nations  have  been  sunk  and  overwhelmed  in  the  waters  in 
the  same  way.  There  has  been  no  discrimination.  The 
challenge  is  to  all  mankind.  Each  nation  must  decide  for 
itself  how  it  will  meet  it.  The  choice  we  make  for  our 
selves  must  be  made  with  a  moderation  of  counsel  and  a 
temperateness  of  judgment  befitting  our  character  and  our 
motives  as  a  nation.  We  must  put  excited  feeling  away. 
Our  motive  will  not  be  revenge  or  the  victorious  assertion 
of  the  physical  might  of  the  Nation,  but  only  the  vindica 
tion  of  right,  of  human  right,  of  which  we  are  only  a  single 
champion. 

When  I  addressed  the  Congress  on  the  26th  of  February 
last  I  thought  that  it  would  suffice  to  assert  our  neutral 
rights  with  arms,  our  right  to  use  the  seas  against  unlawful 
interference,  our  right  to  keep  our  people  safe  against  un 
lawful  violence.  But  armed  neutrality,  it  now  appears,  is 
impracticable.  Because  submarines  are  in  effect  outlaws, 
when  used  as  the  German  submarines  have  been  used  against 
merchant  shipping,  it  is  impossible  to  defend  ships  against 
their  attacks,  as  the  law  of  nations  has  assumed  that  mer 
chantmen  would  defend  themselves  against  privateers  or 
cruisers,  visible  craft  giving  chase  upon  the  open  sea.  It  is 
common  prudence  in  such  circumstances,  grim  necessity,  in 
deed,  to  endeavor  to  destroy  them  before  they  have  shown 


WAR  FOR  DEMOCRACY  AND  PEACE  24,5 

their  own  intention.  They  must  be  dealt  with  upon  sight,  if 
dealt  with  at  all. 

The  German  Government  denies  the  right  of  neutrals  to 
use  arms  at  all  within  the  areas  of  the  sea  which  it  has  pro 
scribed,  even  in  the  defense  of  rights  which  no  modern  pub 
licist  has  ever  before  questioned  their  right  to  defend.  The 
intimation  is  conveyed  that  the  armed  guards  which  we  have 
placed  on  our  merchant  ships  will  be  treated  as  beyond  the 
pale  of  law  and  subject  to  be  dealt  with  as  pirates  would  be. 
Armed  neutrality  is  ineffectual  enough  at  best;  in  such  cir 
cumstances  and  in  the  face  of  such  pretensions  it  is  worse 
than  ineffectual;  it  is  likely  only  to  produce  what  it  was 
meant  to  prevent;  it  is  practically  certain  to  draw  us  into 
the  war  without  either  the  rights  or  the  effectiveness  of  bellig 
erents.  There  is  one  choice  we  cannot  make,  we  are  inca 
pable  of  making:  we  will  not  choose  the  path  of  submission 
and  suffer  the  most  sacred  rights  of  our  Nation  and  our 
people  to  be  ignored  or  violated.  The  wrongs  against  which 
we  now  array  ourselves  are  not  common  wrongs ;  they  cut  to 
the  very  roots  of  human  life. 

With  a  profound  sense  of  the  solemn  and  even  tragical 
character  of  the  step  I  am  taking  and  of  the  grave  respon 
sibilities  which  it  involves,  but  in  unhesitating  obedience  to 
what  I  deem  my  constitutional  duty,  I  advise  that  the  Con 
gress  declare  the  recent  course  of  the  Imperial  German  Gov 
ernment  to  be  in  fact  nothing  less  than  war  against  the  Gov 
ernment  and  people  of  the  United  States;  that  it  formally 
accept  the  status  of  belligerent  which  has  thus  been  thrust 
upon  it;  and  that  it  take  immediate  steps  not  only  to  put 
the  country  in  a  more  thorough  state  of  defense,  but  also  to 
exert  all  its  power  and  employ  all  its  resources  to  bring  the 
Government  of  the  German  Empire  to  terms  and  end  the 
war. 

What  this  will  involve  is  clear.  It  will  involve  the  utmost 


246  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

practicable  cooperation  in  counsel  and  action  with  the  Gov 
ernments  now  at  war  with  Germany,  and,  as  incident  to  that, 
the  extension  to  those  Governments  of  the  most  liberal 
financial  credits,  in  order  that  our  resources  may  so  far  as 
possible  be  added  to  theirs. 

It  will  involve  the  organization  and  mobilization  of  all  the 
material  resources  of  the  country  to  supply  the  materials  of 
war  and  serve  the  incidental  needs  of  the  nation  in  the  most 
abundant  and  yet  the  most  economical  and  efficient  way 
possible. 

It  will  involve  the  immediate  full  equipment  of  the  navy 
in  all  respects,  but  particularly  in  supplying  it  with  the  best 
means  of  dealing  with  the  enemy's  submarines. 

It  will  involve  the  immediate  addition  to  the  armed  forces 
of  the  United  States,  already  provided  for  by  law  in  case  of 
war,  of  at  least  five  hundred  thousand  men  who  should,  in  my 
opinion,  be  chosen  upon  the  principle  of  universal  liability 
to  service,  and  also  the  authorization  of  subsequent  addi 
tional  increments  of  equal  force  so  soon  as  they  may  be 
needed  and  can  be  handled  in  training. 

It  will  involve  also,  of  course,  the  granting  of  adequate 
credits  to  the  Government,  sustained,  I  hope,  so  far  as  they 
can  equitably  be  sustained  by  the  present  generation,  by 
well-conceived  taxation. 

I  say  sustained  so  far  as  may  be  equitable  by  taxation,  be 
cause  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  most  unwise  to  base  the 
credits,  which  will  now  be  necessary,  entirely  on  money  bor 
rowed.  It  is  our  duty,  I  most  respectfully  urge,  to  protect 
our  people,  so  far  as  we  may,  against  the  very  serious  hard 
ships  and  evils  which  would  be  likely  to  arise  out  of  the  in 
flation  which  would  be  produced  by  vast  loans. 

In  carrying  out  the  measures  by  which  these  things  are  to 
be  accomplished,  we  should  keep  constantly  in  mind  the  wis 
dom  of  interfering  as  little  as  possible  in  our  own  prepara- 


WAR  FOR  DEMOCRACY  AND  PEACE  247 

tion  and  in  the  equipment  of  our  own  military  forces  with 
the  duty  —  for  it  will  be  a  very  practical  duty  —  of  sup 
plying  the  nations  already  at  war  with  Germany  with  the 
materials  which  they  can  obtain  only  from  us  or  by  our  as 
sistance.  They  are  in  the  field  and  we  should  help  them  in 
every  way  to  be  effective  there. 

I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  suggesting,  through  the  several 
executive  departments  of  the  Government,  for  the  consider 
ation  of  your  committees,  measures  for  the  accomplishment 
of  the  several  objects  I  have  mentioned.  I  hope  that  it  will  be 
your  pleasure  to  deal  with  them  as  having  been  framed  after 
very  careful  thought  by  the  branch  of  the  Government  upon 
whom  the  responsibility  of  conducting  the  war  and  safe 
guarding  the  Nation  will  most  directly  fall. 

While  we  do  these  things,  these  deeply  momentous  things, 
let  us  be  very  clear,  and  make  very  clear  to  all  the  world,  what 
our  motives  and  our  objects  are.  My  own  thought  has  not 
been  driven  from  its  habitual  and  normal  course  by  the  un 
happy  events  of  the  last  two  months,  and  I  do  not  believe 
that  the  thought  of  the  Nation  has  been  altered  or  clouded 
by  them.  I  have  exactly  the  same  things  in  mind  now  that  I 
had  in  mind  when  I  addressed  the  Senate  on  the  22d  of 
January  last;  the  same  that  I  had  in  mind  when  I  addressed 
the  Congress  on  the  3d  of  February  and  on  the  26th  of  Feb 
ruary.  Our  object  now,  as  then,  is  to  vindicate  the  principles 
of  peace  and  justice  in  the  life  of  the  world  as  against  selfish 
and  autocratic  power,  and  to  set  up  among  the  really  free 
and  self -governed  peoples  of  the  world  such  a  concert  of  pur 
pose  and  of  action  as  will  henceforth  insure  the  observance  of 
those  principles. 

Neutrality  is  no  longer  feasible  or  desirable  where  the 
peace  of  the  world  is  involved  and  the  freedom  of  its  peo 
ples,  arid  the  menace  to  that  peace  and  freedom  lies  in  the 
existence  of  autocratic  Governments,  backed  by  organized 


«48  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

force  which  is  controlled  wholly  by  their  will,  not  by  the 
will  of  their  people.  We  have  seen  the  last  of  neutrality  in 
such  circumstances.  We  are  at  the  beginning  of  an  age  in 
which  it  will  be  insisted  that  the  same  standards  of  conduct 
and  of  responsibility  for  wrong  done  shall  be  observed  among 
nations  and  their  Governments  that  are  observed  among 
the  individual  citizens  of  civilized  States. 

We  have  no  quarrel  with  the  German  people.  We  have  no 
feeling  toward  them  but  one  of  sympathy  and  friendship.  It 
was  not  upon  their  impulse  that  their  Government  acted  in 
entering  this  war.  It  was  not  with  their  previous  knowledge 
or  approval.  It  was  a  war  determined  upon  as  wars  used  to 
be  determined  upon  in  the  old,  unhappy  days,  when  peoples 
were  nowhere  consulted  by  their  rulers  and  wars  were  pro 
voked  and  waged  in  the  interest  of  dynasties  or  of  little 
groups  of  ambitious  men  who  were  accustomed  to  use  their 
fellowmen  as  pawns  and  tools. 

Self-governed  nations  do  not  fill  their  neighbor  States 
with  spies  or  set  the  course  of  intrigue  to  bring  about  some 
critical  posture  of  affairs  which  will  give  them  an  opportunity 
to  strike  and  make  conquest.  Such  designs  can  be  success 
fully  worked  out  only  under  cover  and  where  no  one  has  the 
right  to  ask  questions.  Cunningly  contrived  plans  of  decep 
tion  or  aggression,  carried,  it  may  be,  from  generation  to 
generation,  can  be  worked  out  and  kept  from  the  light  only 
within  the  privacy  of  courts  or  behind  the  carefully  guarded 
confidences  of  a  narrow  and  privileged  class.  They  are  hap 
pily  impossible  where  public  opinion  commands  and  insists 
upon  full  information  concerning  all  the  Nation's  affairs. 

A  steadfast  concert  for  peace  can  never  be  maintained  ex 
cept  by  a  partnership  of  democratic  nations.  No  autocratic 
Government  could  be  trusted  to  keep  faith  within  it  or  ob 
serve  its  covenants.  It  must  be  a  league  of  honor,  a  partner 
ship  of  opinion.  Intrigue  would  eat  its  vitals  away;  the  plot- 


WAR  FOR  DEMOCRACY  AND  PEACE  249 

tings  of  inner  circles  who  could  plan  what  they  would  and 
render  account  to  no  one  would  be  a  corruption  seated  at  its 
very  heart.  Only  free  peoples  can  hold  their  purpose  and 
their  honor  steady  to  a  common  end  and  prefer  the  interests 
of  mankind  to  any  narrow  interest  of  their  own. 

Does  not  every  American  feel  that  assurance  has  been 
added  to  our  hope  for  the  future  peace  of  the  world  by  the 
wonderful  and  heartening  things  that  have  been  happening 
within  the  last  few  weeks  in  Russia?  Russia  was  known  by 
those  who  knew  it  best  to  have  been  always  in  fact  demo 
cratic  at  heart,  in  all  the  vital  habits  of  her  thought,  in  all  the 
intimate  relationships  of  her  people  that  spoke  their  natural 
instinct,  their  habitual  attitude  toward  life.  The  autocracy 
that  crowned  the  summit  of  her  political  structure,  long  as 
it  had  stood  and  terrible  as  was  the  reality  of  its  power,  was 
not  in  fact  Russian  in  origin,  character,  or  purpose;  and  now 
it  has  been  shaken  off  and  the  great,  generous  Russian  people 
have  been  added,  in  all  their  native  majesty  and  might,  to 
the  forces  that  are  fighting  for  freedom  in  the  world,  for 
justice,  and  for  peace.  Here  is  a  fit  partner  for  a  league  of 
honor. 

One  of  the  things  that  has  served  to  convince  us  that  the 
Prussian  autocracy  was  not  and  could  never  be  our  friend  is 
that  from  the  very  outset  of  the  present  war  it  has  filled  our 
unsuspecting  communities,  and  even  our  offices  of  govern 
ment,  with  spies  and  set  criminal  intrigues  everywhere  afoot 
against  our  National  unity  of  counsel,  our  peace  within  and 
without,  our  industries  and  our  commerce.  Indeed,  it  is  now 
evident  that  its  spies  were  here  even  before  the  war  began; 
and  it  is  unhappily  not  a  matter  of  conjecture,  but  a  fact 
proved  in  our  courts  of  justice,  that  the  intrigues,  which 
have  more  than  once  come  perilously  near  to  disturbing  the 
peace  and  dislocating  the  industries  of  the  country,  have 
been  carried  on  at  the  instigation,  with  the  support,  and 


250  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

even  under  the  personal  direction  of  official  agents  of  the  Im 
perial  Government,  accredited  to  the  Government  of  the 
United  States. 

Even  in  checking  these  things  and  trying  to  extirpate 
them  we  have  sought  to  put  the  most  generous  interpreta 
tion  possible  upon  them  because  we  knew  that  their  source 
lay,  not  in  any  hostile  feeling  or  purpose  of  the  German 
people  toward  us  (who  were,  no  doubt,  as  ignorant  of  them 
as  we  ourselves  were),  but  only  in  the  selfish  designs  of  a 
Government  that  did  what  it  pleased  and  told  its  people 
nothing.  But  they  have  played  their  part  in  serving  to  con 
vince  us  at  last  that  the  Government  entertains  no  real 
friendship  for  us,  and  means  to  act  against  our  peace  and  se 
curity  at  its  convenience.  That  it  means  to  stir  up  enemies 
against  us  at  our  very  doors  the  intercepted  note  to  the  Ger 
man  Minister  at  Mexico  City  is  eloquent  evidence. 

We  are  accepting  this  challenge  of  hostile  purpose  because 
we  know  that  in  such  a  Government,  following  such  methods, 
we  can  never  have  a  friend;  and  that  in  the  presence  of  its 
organized  power,  always  lying  in  wait  to  accomplish  we 
know  not  what  purpose,  can  be  no  assured  security  for  the 
democratic  Governments  of  the  world.  We  are  now  about 
to  accept  the  gage  of  battle  with  this  natural  foe  to  liberty 
and  shall,  if  necessary,  spend  the  whole  force  of  the  nation 
to  check  and  nullify  its  pretensions  and  its  power.  We  are 
glad,  now  that  we  see  the  facts  with  no  veil  of  false  pretense 
about  them,  to  fight  thus  for  the  ultimate  peace  of  the  world 
and  for  the  liberation  of  its  peoples,  the  German  people  in 
cluded;  for  the  rights  of  nations,  great  and  small,  and  the 
privilege  of  men  everywhere  to  choose  their  way  of  life  and 
of  obedience.  The  world  must  be  made  safe  for  democracy. 
Its  peace  must  be  planted  upon  the  tested  foundations  of 

/litical  liberty. 
We  have  no  selfish  ends  to  serve.   We  desire  no  conquest, 


WAR  FOR  DEMOCRACY  AND  PEACE          251 

no  dominion.  We  seek  no  indemnities  for  ourselves,  no 
material  compensation  for  the  sacrifices  we  shall  freely 
make.  We  are  but  one  of  the  champions  of  the  rights  of 
mankind.  We  shall  be  satisfied  when  those  rights  have  been 
made  as  secure  as  the  faith  and  the  freedom  of  nations  can 
make  them^X" 

Just  because  we  fight  without  rancor  and  without  selfish 
object,  seeking  nothing  for  ourselves  but  what  we  shall  wish 
to  share  with  all  free  peoples,  we  shall,  I  feel  confident,  con 
duct  our  operations  as  belligerents  without  passion  and  our 
selves  observe  with  proud  punctilio  the  principles  of  right 
and  of  fair  play  we  profess  to  be  fighting  for. 

I  have  said  nothing  of  the  Governments  allied  with  the 
Imperial  Government  of  Germany  because  they  have  not 
made  war  upon  us  or  challenged  us  to  defend  our  right  and 
our  honor.  The  Austro-Hungarian  Government  has,  indeed, 
avowed  its  unqualified  endorsement  and  acceptance  of  the 
reckless  and  lawless  submarine  warfare,  adopted  now  with 
out  disguise  by  the  Imperial  German  Government,  and  it 
has  therefore  not  been  possible  for  this  Government  to  re 
ceive  Count  Tarnowski,  the  Ambassador  recently  accredited 
to  this  Government  by  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Govern 
ment  of  Austria-Hungary;  but  that  Government  has  not 
actually  engaged  in  warfare  against  citizens  of  the  United 
States  on  the  seas,  and  I  take  the  liberty,  for  the  present  at 
least,  of  postponing  a  discussion  of  our  relations  with  the 
authorities  at  Vienna.  We  enter  this  war  only  where  we  are 
clearly  forced  into  it  because  there  are  no  other  means  of 
defending  our  right. 

It  will  be  all  the  easier  for  us  to  conduct  ourselves  as  bellig 
erents  in  a  high  spirit  of  right  and  fairness  because  we  act 
without  animus,  not  with  enmity  toward  a  people  or  with 
the  desire  to  bring  any  injury  or  disadvantage  upon  them, 
but  only  an  armed  opposition  to  an  irresponsible  Government 


252  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

which  has  thrown  aside  all  considerations  of  humanity  and  ' 
right  and  is  running  amuck. 
re  are,  let  me  say  again,  the  sincere  friends  of  the  German 

>ple,  and  shall  desire  nothing  so  much  as  the  early  re- 
establishment  of  intimate  relations  of  mutual  advantage 
between  us,  however  hard  it  may  be  for  them  for  the  time 
being  to  believe  that  this  is  spoken  from  our  hearts.  We 
have  borne  with  their  present  Government  through  all  these 
bitter  months  because  of  that  friendship,  exercising  a  pa 
tience  and  forbearance  which  would  otherwise  have  been 
impossible/^ 

We  shqfl  happily  still  have  an  opportunity  to  prove  that 
friendship  in  our  daily  attitude  and  actions  toward  the  mil 
lions  of  men  and  women  of  German  birth  and  native  sympa 
thy  who  live  among  us  and  share  our  life,  and  we  shall  be 
proud  to  prove  it  toward  all  who  are  in  fact  loyal  to  their 
neighbors  and  to  the  Government  in  the  hour  of  test.  They 
are  most  of  them  as  true  and  loyal  Americans  as  if  they  had 
never  known  any  other  fealty  or  allegiance.  They  will  be 
prompt  to  stand  with  us  in  rebuking  and  restraining  the 
few  who  may  be  of  a  different  mind  and  purpose.  If  there 
should  be  disloyalty,  it  will  be  dealt  with  with  a  firm  hand  of 
stern  repression;  but,  if  it  lifts  its  head  at  all,  it  will  lift  it 
only  here  and  there  and  without  countenance  except  from  a 
lawless  and  malignant  few. 

It  is  a  distressing  and  oppressive  duty,  gentlemen  of  the 
Congress,  which  I  have  performed  in  thus  addressing  you. 
There  are,  it  may  be,  many  months  of  fiery  trial  and  sacri 
fice  ahead  of  us.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  lead  this  great,  peace 
ful  people  into  war,  into  the  most  terrible  and  disastrous  of 
all  wars,  civilization  itself  seeming  to  be  in  the  balance. 

But  the  right  is  more  precious  than  peace,  and  we  shall 
fight  for  the  things  which  we  have  always  carried  nearest  our 
hearts  —  for  democracy,  for  the  right  of  those  who  submit  to 


WAR  FOR  DEMOCRACY  AND  PEACE  253 

authority  to  have  a  voice  in  their  own  Governments,  for  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  small  nations,  for  a  universal  dominion 
of  right  by  such  a  concert  of  free  peoples  as  shall  bring  peace 
and  safety  to  all  nations  and  make  the  world  itself  at  last 
free. 

To  such  a  task  we  can  dedicate  our  lives  and  our  fortunes, 
everything  that  we  are  and  everything  that  we  have,  with 
the  pride  of  those  who  know  that  the  day  has  come  when 
America  is  privileged  to  spend  her  blood  and  her  might  for 
the  principles  that  gave  her  birth  and  happiness  and  the 
peace  which  she  has  treasured. 

God  helping  her,  she  can  do  no  other. 


V 

FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


TO  OLD-WORLD  CRITICS1 
WALT  WHITMAN 

HERE  first  the  duties  of  to-day,  the  lessons  of  the  concrete, 
Wealth,  order,  travel,  shelter,  products,  plenty; 
As  of  the  building  of  some  varied,  vast,  perpetual  edifice, 
Whence  to  arise  inevitable  in  time,  the  towering  roofs,  the  lamps, 
The  solid-planted  spires  tall  shooting  to  the  stars. 

1  Included  in  "Sand?  at  Seventy,"  Leaves  of  Grass.   Reprinted  with  the  generous  per 
mission  of  Mr.  Horace  Traubel. 


THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  PEOPLE » 
ALEXIS  DE  TOCQUEVILLE 

WHENEVER  the  political  laws  of  the  United  States  are  to 
be  discussed,  it  is  with  the  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people  that  we  must  begin. 

The  principle  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  which  is  to 
be  found,  more  or  less,  at  the  bottom  of  almost  all  human 
institutions,  generally  remains  concealed  from  view.  It  is 
obeyed  without  being  recognized,  or  if  for  a  moment  it  be 
brought  to  light,  it  is  hastily  cast  back  into  the  gloom  of  the 
sanctuary. 

"The  will  of  the  nation"  is  one  of  those  expressions  which 
have  been  most  profusely  abused  by  the  wily  and  the  des 
potic  of  every  age.  To  the  eyes  of  some  it  has  been  repre 
sented  by  the  venal  suffrages  of  a  few  of  the  satellites  of 
power;  to  others,  by  the  votes  of  a  timid  or  an  interested 
minority;  and  some  have  even  discovered  it  in  the  silence 
of  a  people,  on  the  supposition  that  the  fact  of  submission 
established  the  right  of  command. 

In  America,  the  principle  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people 
is  not  either  barren  or  concealed,  as  it  is  with  some  other 
nations;  it  is  recognized  by  the  customs  and  proclaimed  by 
the  laws;  it  spreads  freely,  and  arrives  without  impediment 
at  its  most  remote  consequences.  If  there  be  a  country  in 
the  world  where  the  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people 
can  be  fairly  appreciated,  where  it  can  be  studied  in  its  ap- 

1  Tocqueville,  after  a  two  years'  visit,  described  and  interpreted  the 
United  States  of  his  day  in  De  la  Dtmocratie  en  Amerique,  1835,  from 
which  this  and  the  two  following  selections  are  taken. 


&38    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

plication  to  the  affairs  of  society,  and  where  its  dangers  and 
its  advantages  may  be  foreseen,  that  country  is  assuredly 
America. 

I  have  already  observed  that,  from  their  origin,  the  sov 
ereignty  of  the  people  was  the  fundamental  principle  of  the 
greater  number  of  the  British  colonies  in  America.  It  was 
far,  however,  from  then  exercising  as  much  influence  on 
the  government  of  society  as  it  now  does.  Two  obstacles, 
the  one  external,  the  other  internal,  checked  its  invasive 
progress. 

It  could  not  ostensibly  disclose  itself  in  the  laws  of  the 
colonies,  which  were  still  constrained  to  obey  the  mother- 
country;  it  was  therefore  obliged  to  spread  secretly,  and  to 
gain  ground  in  the  provincial  assemblies,  and  especially  in 
the  townships. 

American  society  was  not  yet  prepared  to  adopt  it  with 
all  its  consequences.  The  intelligence  of  New  England,  and 
the  wealth  of  the  country  to  the  south  of  the  Hudson  (as  I 
have  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter),  long  exercised  a 
sort  of  aristocratic  influence,  which  tended  to  limit  the  ex 
ercise  of  social  authority  within  the  hands  of  a  few.  The 
public  functionaries  were  not  universally  elected,  and  the 
citizens  were  not  all  of  them  electors.  The  electoral  fran 
chise  was  everywhere  placed  within  certain  limits,  and  made 
dependent  on  a  certain  qualification,  which  was  exceedingly 
low  in  the  north,  and  more  considerable  in  the  south. 

The  American  Revolution  broke  out,  and  the  doctrine  of 
the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  which  had  been  nurtured  in 
the  townships,  took  possession  of  the  State;  every  class  was 
enlisted  in  its  cause;  battles  were  fought,  and  victories  ob 
tained  for  it;  until  it  became  the  law  of  laws. 

A  scarcely  less  rapid  change  was  effected  in  the  interior  of 
society,  where  the  law  of  descent  completed  the  abolition  of 
local  influences. 


THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  THE  PEOPLE          2o9 

At  the  very  time  when  this  consequence  of  the  laws  and 
of  the  Revolution  became  apparent  to  every  eye,  victory 
was  irrevocably  pronounced  in  favor  of  the  democratic 
cause.  All  power  was,  in  fact,  in  its  hands,  and  resistance 
was  no  longer  possible.  The  higher  orders  submitted  without 
a  murmur  and  without  a  struggle  to  an  evil  which  was  thence 
forth  inevitable.  The  ordinary  fate  of  falling  powers  awaited 
them;  each  of  their  several  members  followed  his  own  in 
terest;  and  as  it  was  impossible  to  wring  the  power  from  the 
hands  of  a  people  which  they  did  not  detest  sufficiently  to 
brave,  their  only  aim  was  to  secure  its  good-will  at  any 
price.  The  most  democratic  laws  were  consequently  voted 
by  the  very  men  whose  interests  they  impaired;  and  thus, 
although  the  higher  classes  did  not  excite  the  passions  of  the 
people  against  their  order,  they  accelerated  the  triumph 
of  the  new  state  of  things;  so  that,  by  a  singular  change,  the 
democratic  impulse  was  found  to  be  most  irresistible  in  the 
very  States  where  the  aristocracy  had  the  firmest  hold. 

The  State  of  Maryland,  which  had  been  founded  by  men 
of  rank,  was  the  first  to  proclaim  universal  suffrage,  and  to 
introduce  the  most  democratic  forms  into  the  conduct  of  its 
government. 

When  a  nation  modifies  the  elective  qualification,  it  may 
easily  be  foreseen  that  sooner  or  later  that  qualification  will 
be  entirely  abolished.  There  is  no  more  invariable  rule  in  the 
history  of  society :  the  farther  electoral  rights  are  extended, 
the  more  is  felt  the  need  of  extending  them;  for  after  each 
concession  the  strength  of  the  democracy  increases,  and  its 
demands  increase  with  its  strength.  The  ambition  of  those 
who  are  below  the  appointed  rate  is  irritated  in  exact  propor 
tion  to  the  great  number  of  those  who  are  above  it.  The  ex 
ception  at  last  becomes  the  rule,  concession  follows  conces 
sion,  and  no  stop  can  be  made  short  of  universal  suffrage. 

At  the  present  day  the  principle  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 


260    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

people  has  acquired,  in  the  United  States,  all  the  practical 
development  which  the  imagination  can  conceive.  It  is  un 
encumbered  by  those  fictions  which  have  been  thrown  over 
it  in  other  countries,  and  it  appears  in  every  possible  form 
according  to  the  exigency  of  the  occasion.  Sometimes  the 
laws  are  made  by  the  people  in  a  body,  as  at  Athens;  and 
sometimes  its  representatives,  chosen  by  universal  suffrage, 
transact  business  in  its  name,  and  almost  under  its  immedi 
ate  control. 

In  some  countries  a  power  exists  which,  though  it  is  in  a 
degree  foreign  to  the  social  body,  directs  it,  and  forces  it  to 
pursue  a  certain  track.  In  others  the  ruling  force  is  divided, 
being  partly  within  and  partly  without  the  ranks  of  the 
people.  But  nothing  of  the  kind  is  to  be  seen  in  the  United 
States;  there  society  governs  itself  for  itself.  All  power  cen 
ters  in  its  bosom;  and  scarcely  an  individual  is  to  be  met 
with  who  would  venture  to  conceive,  or,  still  more,  to  ex 
press,  the  idea  of  seeking  it  elsewhere.  The  Nation  partici 
pates  in  the  making  of  its  laws  by  the  choice  of  its  legislators, 
and  in  the  execution  of  them  by  the  choice  of  the  agents  of 
the  Executive  Government;  it  may  almost  be  said  to  govern 
itself,  so  feeble  and  so  restricted  is  the  share  left  to  the  Ad 
ministration,  so  little  do  the  authorities  forget  their  popular 
origin  and  the  power  from  which  they  emanate. 


GENERAL  TENDENCY  OF  THE  LAWS 
ALEXIS  DE  TOCQUEVILLE 

THE  defects  and  the  weaknesses  of  a  democratic  govern 
ment  may  very  readily  be  discovered;  they  are  demonstrated 
by  the  most  flagrant  instances,  while  its  beneficial  influence 
is  less  perceptibly  exercised.  A  single  glance  suffices  to  de 
tect  its  evil  consequences,  but  its  good  qualities  can  only 
be  discerned  by  long  observation.  The  laws  of  the  American 
democracy  are  frequently  defective  or  incomplete;  they 
sometimes  attack  vested  rights,  or  give  a  sanction  to  others 
which  are  dangerous  to  the  community;  but  even  if  they 
were  good,  the  frequent  changes  which  they  undergo  would 
be  an  evil.  How  comes  it,  then,  that  the  American  Repub 
lics  prosper  and  maintain  their  position? 

In  the  consideration  of  laws  a  distinction  must  be  carefully 
observed  between  the  end  at  which  they  aim  and  the  means 
by  which  they  are  directed  to  that  end;  between  their  abso 
lute  and  their  relative  excellence.  If  it  be  the  intention  of 
the  legislator  to  favor  the  interests  of  the  minority  at  the 
expense  of  the  majority,  and  if  the  measures  he  takes  are  so 
combined  as  to  accomplish  the  object  he  has  in  view  with 
the  least  possible  expense  of  time,  and  exertion,  the  law  may 
be  well  drawn  up,  although  its  purpose  be  bad;  and  the  more 
efficacious  it  is,  the  greater  is  the  mischief  which  it  causes. 

Democratic  laws  generally  tend  to  promote  the  welfare  of 
the  greatest  possible  number;  for  they  emanate  from  a  ma 
jority  of  the  citizens,  who  are  subject  to  error,  but  who  can 
not  have  an  interest  opposed  to  their  own  advantage.  The 
laws  of  an  aristocracy  tend,  on  the  contrary,  to  concentrate 


262    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

wealth  and  power  in  the  hands  of  the  minority,  because  an 
aristocracy,  by  its  very  nature,  constitutes  a  minority.  It 
may  therefore  be  asserted,  as  a  general  proposition,  that  the 
purpose  of  a  democracy,  in  the  conduct  of  its  legislation,  is 
useful  to  a  greater  number  of  citizens  than  that  of  an  aris 
tocracy.  This  is,  however,  the  sum  total  of  its  advantages. 

Aristocracies  are  infinitely  more  expert  in  the  science  of 
legislation  than  democracies  ever  can  be.  They  are  possessed 
of  a  self-control  which  protects  them  from  the  errors  of  a 
temporary  excitement;  and  they  form  lasting  designs  which 
they  mature  with  the  assistance  of  favorable  opportunities. 
Aristocratic  government  proceeds  with  the  dexterity  of  art; 
it  understands  how  to  make  the  collective  force  of  all  its 
laws  converge  at  the  same  time  to  a  given  point.  Such  is  not 
the  case  with  democracies,  whose  laws  are  almost  always 
ineffective  or  inopportune.  The  means  of  democracy  are 
therefore  more  imperfect  than  those  of  aristocracy,  and  the 
measures  which  it  unwittingly  adopts  are  frequently  op 
posed  to  its  own  cause;  but  the  object  it  has  in  view  is  more 
useful. 

Let  us  now  imagine  a  community  so  organized  by  nature,  or 
by  its  constitution,  that  it  can  support  the  transitory  action 
of  bad  laws,  and  that  it  can  await,  without  destruction,  the 
general  tendency  of  the  legislation :  we  shall  then  be  able  to 
conceive  that  a  democratic  government,  notwithstanding  its 
defects,  will  be  most  fitted  to  conduce  to  the  prosperity  of 
this  community.  This  is  precisely  what  has  occurred  in  the 
United  States;  and  I  repeat,  what  I  have  before  remarked, 
that  the  great  advantage  of  the  Americans  consists  in  their 
being  able  to  commit  faults  which  they  may  afterward 
repair. 

An  analogous  observation  may  be  made  respecting  public 
officers.  It  is  easy  to  perceive  that  the  American  democracy 
frequently  errs  in  the  choice  of  the  individuals  to  whom  it  en- 


GENERAL  TENDENCY  OF  THE  LAWS    263 

trusts  the  power  of  the  Administration;  but  it  is  more  diffi 
cult  to  say  why  the  State  prospers  under  their  rule.  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  if  in  a  democratic  State 
the  governors  have  less  honesty  and  less  capacity  than  else 
where,  the  governed,  on  the  other  hand,  are  more  enlight 
ened  and  more  attentive  to  their  interests.  As  the  people  in 
democracies  is  more  incessantly  vigilant  in  its  affairs,  and 
more  jealous  of  its  rights,  it  prevents  its  representatives 
from  abandoning  that  general  line  of  conduct  which  its  own 
interest  prescribes.  In  the  second  place,  it  must  be  remem 
bered  that  if  the  democratic  magistrate  is  more  apt  to  misuse 
his  power,  he  possesses  it  for  a  shorter  period  of  time.  But 
there  is  yet  another  reason  which  is  still  more  general  and 
conclusive.  It  is  no  doubt  of  importance  to  the  welfare  of 
nations  that  they  should  be  governed  by  men  of  talents  and 
virtue;  but  it  is  perhaps  still  more  important  that  the  in 
terests  of  those  men  should  not  differ  from  the  interests  of 
the  community  at  large;  for  if  such  were  the  case,  virtues  of 
a  high  order  might  become  useless,  and  talents  might  be 
turned  to  a  bad  account. 

I  say  that  it  is  important  that  the  interests  of  the  persons 
in  authority  should  not  conflict  with  or  oppose  the  interests 
of  the  community  at  large;  but  I  do  not  insist  upon  their 
having  the  same  interests  as  the  whole  population,  because  I 
am  not  aware  that  such  a  state  of  things  ever  existed  in  any 
country. 

No  political  form  has  hitherto  been  discovered,  which  is 
equally  favorable  to  the  prosperity  and  the  development  of 
all  the  classes  into  which  society  is  divided.  These  classes 
continue  to  form,  as  it  were,  a  certain  number  of  distinct 
nations  in  the  same  nation;  and  experience  has  shown  that  it 
is  no  less  dangerous  to  place  the  fate  of  these  classes  exclu 
sively  in  the  hands  of  any  one  of  them,  than  it  is  to  make  one 
people  the  arbiter  of  the  destiny  of  another.  When  the  rich 


2C4    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

alone  govern,  the  interest  of  the  poor  is  always  endangered; 
and  when  the  poor  make  the  laws,  that  of  the  rich  incurs 
very  serious  risks.  The  advantage  of  democracy  does  not 
consist,  therefore,  as  has  been  sometimes  asserted,  in  favor 
ing  the  prosperity  of  all,  but  simply  in  contributing  to  the 
well-being  of  the  greatest  possible  number. 

The  men  who  are  entrusted  with  the  direction  of  public 
affairs  in  the  United  States  are  frequently  inferior,  both  in 
point  of  capacity  and  of  morality,  to  those  whom  aristocratic 
institutions  would  raise  to  power.  But  their  interest  is  iden 
tified  and  confounded  with  that  of  the  majority  of  their 
fellow-citizens.  They  may  frequently  be  faithless,  and  fre 
quently  mistake;  but  they  will  never  systematically  adopt  a 
line  of  conduct  opposed  to  the  will  of  the  majority;  and  it  is 
impossible  that  they  should  give  a  dangerous  or  an  exclusive 
tendency  to  the  Government. 

The  maladministration  of  a  democratic  magistrate  is  a 
mere  isolated  fact,  which  only  occurs  during  the  short  period 
for  which  he  is  elected.  Corruption  and  incapacity  do  not 
act  as  common  interests,  which  may  connect  men  perma 
nently  with  one  another.  A  corrupt  or  an  incapable  magis 
trate  will  not  concert  his  measures  with  another  magistrate, 
simply  because  that  individual  is  as  corrupt  and  as  inca 
pable  as  himself;  and  these  two  men  will  never  unite  their  en 
deavors  to  promote  the  corruption  and  inaptitude  of  their 
remote  posterity.  The  ambition  and  manoeuvers  of  the  one 
will  serve,  on  the  contrary,  to  unmask  the  other.  The  vices 
of  a  magistrate,  in  democratic  States,  are  usually  peculiar  to 
his  own  person. 

But  under  aristocratic  Governments  public  men  are 
swayed  by  the  interests  of  their  order,  which,  if  it  is  some 
times  confounded  with  the  interests  of  the  majority,  is  very 
frequently  distinct  from  them.  This  interest  is  the  common 
and  lasting  bond  which  unites  them  together;  it  induces 


GENERAL  TENDENCY  OF  THE  LAWS    265 

them  to  coalesce,  and  to  combine  their  efforts  in  order  to 
attain  an  end  which  does  not  always  ensure  the  greatest 
happiness  of  the  greatest  number;  and  it  serves  not  only  to 
connect  the  persons  in  authority,  but  to  unite  them  to  a  con 
siderable  portion  of  the  community,  since  a  numerous  body 
of  citizens  belongs  to  the  aristocracy,  without  being  invested 
with  official  functions.  The  aristocratic  magistrate  is  there 
fore  constantly  supported  by  a  portion  of  the  community, 
as  well  as  by  the  Government  of  which  he  is  a  member. 

The  common  purpose  which  connects  the  interest  of  the 
magistrates  in  aristocracies  with  that  of  a  portion  of  their 
contemporaries,  identifies  it  with  that  of  future  genera 
tions;  their  influence  belongs  to  the  future  as  much  as  to  the 
present.  The  aristocratic  magistrate  is  urged  at  the  same 
time  toward  the  same  point,  by  the  passions  of  the  commu 
nity,  by  his  own,  and  I  may  almost  add,  by  those  of  his  pos 
terity.  It  is,  then,  wonderful  that  he  does  not  resist  such 
repeated  impulses?  And,  indeed,  aristocracies  are  often  car 
ried  away  by  the  spirit  of  their  order  without  being  corrupted 
by  it;  and  they  unconsciously  fashion  society  to  their  own 
ends,  and  prepare  it  for  their  own  descendants. 

The  English  aristocracy  is  perhaps  the  most  liberal  which 
ever  existed,  and  no  body  of  men  has  ever,  uninterruptedly, 
furnished  so  many  honorable  and  enlightened  individuals  to 
the  government  of  a  country.  It  cannot,  however,  escape 
observation,  that  in  the  legislation  of  England  the  good  of 
the  poor  has  been  sacrificed  to  the  advantage  of  the  rich, 
and  the  rights  of  the  majority  to  the  privileges  of  the  few. 
The  consequence  is,  that  England,  at  the  present  day,  com 
bines  the  extremes  of  fortune  in  the  bosom  of  her  society; 
and  her  perils  and  calamities  are  almost  equal  to  her  power 
and  her  renown. 

In  the  United  States,  where  the  public  officers  have  no  in 
terests  to  promote  connected  with  their  caste,the  general  and 


266    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

constant  influence  of  the  Government  is  beneficial,  although 
the  individuals  who  conduct  it  are  frequently  unskillful  and 
sometimes  contemptible.  There  is,  indeed,  a  secret  tendency 
in  democratic  institutions  to  render  the  exertions  of  the  citi 
zens  subservient  to  the  prosperity  of  the  community,  not 
withstanding  their  private  vices  and  mistakes;  while  in 
aristocratic  institutions  there  is  a  secret  propensity,  which, 
notwithstanding  the  talents  and  the  virtues  of  those  who  con 
duct  the  Government,  leads  them  to  contribute  to  the  evils 
which  oppress  their  fellow-creatures.  In  aristocratic  Gov 
ernments  public  men  may  frequently  do  injuries  which  they 
do  not  intend;  and  in  democratic  States  they  produce  ad 
vantages  which  they  never  thought  of. 


THE  ACTIVITY  OF  THE  BODY  POLITIC 

ALEXIS  DE  TOCQUEVILLE 

ON  passing  from  a  country  in  which  free  institutions  are 
established  to  one  where  they  do  not  exist,  the  traveler  is 
struck  by  the  change;  in  the  former  all  is  bustle  and  activity, 
in  the  latter  everything  is  calm  and  motionless.  In  the  one, 
melioration  and  progress  are  the  general  topics  of  inquiry; 
in  the  other,  it  seems  as  if  the  community  only  aspired  to 
repose  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  advantages  which  it  has 
acquired.  Nevertheless,  the  country  which  exerts  itself  so 
strenuously  to  promote  its  welfare  is  generally  more  wealthy 
and  more  prosperous  than  that  which  appears  to  be  so  con 
tented  with  its  lot;  and  when  we  compare  them  together,  we 
can  scarcely  conceive  how  so  many  new  wants  are  daily  felt 
in  the  former,  while  so  few  seem  to  occur  in  the  latter. 

If  this  remark  is  applicable  to  those  free  countries  in 
which  monarchical  and  aristocratic  institutions  subsist,  it 
is  still  more  striking  with  regard  to  democratic  republics.  In 
these  States  it  is  not  only  a  portion  of  the  people  which  is 
busied  with  the  melioration  of  its  social  condition,  but  the 
whole  community  is  engaged  in  the  task;  and  it  is  not  the 
exigencies  and  the  convenience  of  a  single  class  for  which  a 
provision  is  to  be  made,  but  the  exigencies  and  the  conven 
ience  of  all  ranks  of  life. 

It  is  not  impossible  to  conceive  the  surpassing  liberty 
which  the  Americans  enjoy;  some  idea  may  likewise  be 
formed  of  the  extreme  equality  which  subsists  among  them; 
but  the  political  activity  which  pervades  the  United  States 
must  be  seen  in  order  to  be  understood.  No  sooner  do  you 


268    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

set  foot  upon  the  American  soil  than  you  are  stunned  by  a 
kind  of  tumult;  a  confused  clamor  is  heard  on  every  side; 
a  thousand  simultaneous  voices  demand  the  immediate 
satisfaction  of  their  social  wants.  Everything  is  in  motion 
around  you;  here,  the  people  of  one  quarter  of  a  town  are 
met  to  decide  upon  the  building  of  a  church;  there,  the  elec 
tion  of  a  representative  is  going  on;  a  little  farther,  the  dele 
gates  of  a  district  are  posting  to  the  town  in  order  to  consult 
upon  some  local  improvements;  or,  in  another  place,  the 
laborers  of  a  village  quit  their  ploughs  to  deliberate  upon 
the  project  of  a  road  or  a  public  school.  Meetings  are  called 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  declaring  their  disapprobation  of  the 
line  of  conduct  pursued  by  the  Government;  while  in  other 
assemblies  the  citizens  salute  the  authorities  of  the  day  as 
the  fathers  of  their  country.  Societies  are  formed  which  re 
gard  drunkenness  as  the  principal  cause  of  the  evils  under 
which  the  State  labors,  and  which  solemnly  bind  themselves 
to  give  a  constant  example  of  temperance. 

The  great  political  agitation  of  the  American  legislative 
bodies,  which  is  the  only  kind  of  excitement  that  attracts  the 
attention  of  foreign  countries,  is  a  mere  episode  or  a  sort  of 
continuation  of  that  universal  movement  which  originates 
in  the  lowest  classes  of  the  people  and  extends  successively 
to  all  the  ranks  of  society.  It  is  impossible  to  spend  more 
efforts  in  the  pursuit  of  enjoyment. 

The  cares  of  political  life  engross  a  most  prominent  place 
in  the  occupation  of  a  citizen  in  the  United  States;  and  al 
most  the  only  pleasure  of  which  an  American  has  any  idea, 
is  to  take  a  part  in  the  Government,  and  to  discuss  the  part 
he  has  taken.  This  feeling  pervades  the  most  trifling  habits 
of  life;  even  the  women  frequently  attend  public  meetings, 
and  listen  to  political  harangues  as  a  recreation  after  their 
household  labors.  Debating  clubs  are  to  a  certain  extent  a 
substitute  for  theatrical  entertainments:  an  American  can- 


THE  ACTIVITY  OF  THE  BODY  POLITIC        2G9 

not  converse,  but  he  can  discuss;  and  when  he  attempts  to 
talk  he  falls  into  a  dissertation.  He  speaks  to  you  as  if  he 
were  addressing  a  meeting;  and  if  he  should  warm  in  the 
course  of  the  discussion,  he  will  infallibly  say,  "  Gentlemen,'* 
to  the  person  with  whom  he  is  conversing. 

In  some  countries  the  inhabitants  display  a  certain  repug 
nance  to  avail  themselves  of  the  political  privileges  with 
which  the  law  invests  them ;  it  would  seem  that  they  set  too 
high  a  value  upon  their  time  to  spend  it  on  the  interests  of 
the  community;  and  they  prefer  to  withdraw  within  the 
exact  limits  of  a  wholesome  egotism,  marked  out  by  four 
sunk  fences  and  a  quickset  hedge.  But  if  an  American  were 
condemned  to  confine  his  activity  to  his  own  affairs,  he 
would  be  robbed  of  one  half  of  his  existence;  he  would  feel  an 
immense  void  in  the  life  which  he  is  accustomed  to  lead,  and 
his  wretchedness  would  be  unbearable.  I  am  persuaded  that 
if  ever  a  despotic  government  is  established  in  America,  it 
will  find  it  more  difficult  to  surmount  the  habits  which  free 
institutions  have  engendered  than  to  conquer  the  attach 
ment  of  the  citizens  to  freedom. 

This  ceaseless  agitation  which  democratic  government 
has  introduced  into  the  political  world,  influences  all  social 
intercourse.  I  am  not  sure  that  upon  the  whole  this  is  not 
the  greatest  advantage  of  democracy;  and  I  am  much  less 
inclined  to  applaud  it  for  what  it  does  than  for  what  it  causes 
to  be  done. 

It  is  incontestable  that  the  people  frequently  conducts 
public  business  very  ill;  but  it  is  impossible  that  the  lower 
orders  should  take  a  part  in  public  business  without  extend 
ing  the  circle  of  their  ideas,  and  without  quitting  the  ordi 
nary  routine  of  their  mental  acquirements.  The  humblest 
individual  who  is  called  upon  to  cooperate  in  the  govern 
ment  of  society,  acquires  a  certain  degree  of  self-respect; 
and  as  he  possesses  authority,  he  can  command  the  services 


270    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

of  minds  much  more  enlightened  than  his  own.  He  is  can 
vassed  by  a  multitude  of  applicants,  who  seek  to  deceive  him 
in  a  thousand  different  ways,  but  who  instruct  him  by  their 
deceit.  He  takes  a  part  in  political  undertakings  which  did 
not  originate  in  his  own  conception,  but  which  give  him  a 
taste  for  undertakings  of  the  kind.  New  meliorations  are 
daily  pointed  out  in  the  property  which  he  holds  in  common 
with  others,  and  this  gives  him  the  desire  of  improving  that 
property  which  is  more  peculiarly  his  own.  He  is  perhaps 
neither  happier  nor  better  than  those  who  came  before  him, 
but  he  is  better  informed  and  more  active.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  the  democratic  institutions  of  the  United  States,  joined 
to  the  physical  constitution  of  the  country,  are  the  cause  (not 
the  direct,  as  is  so  often  asserted,  but  the  indirect  cause)  of 
the  prodigious  commercial  activity  of  the  inhabitants.  It 
is  not  engendered  by  the  laws,  but  the  people  learns  how  to 
promote  it  by  the  experience  derived  from  legislation. 

When  the  opponents  of  democracy  assert  that  a  single 
individual  performs  the  duties  which  he  undertakes  much 
better  than  the  government  of  the  community,  it  appears  to 
me  that  they  are  perfectly  right.  The  government  of  an  in 
dividual,  supposing  an  equality  of  instruction  on  either  side, 
is  more  consistent,  more  persevering,  and  more  accurate 
than  that  of  a  multitude,  and  it  is  much  better  qualified 
judiciously  to  discriminate  the  characters  of  the  men  it  em 
ploys.  If  any  deny  what  I  advance,  they  have  certainly  never 
seen  a  democratic  government,  or  have  formed  their  opinion 
upon  very  partial  evidence.  It  is  true  that  even  when  local 
circumstances  and  the  disposition  of  the  people  allow  demo 
cratic  institutions  to  subsist,  they  never  display  a  regular 
and  methodical  system  of  government.  Democratic  liberty 
is  far  from  accomplishing  all  the  projects  it  undertakes,  with 
the  skill  of  an  adroit  despotism.  It  frequently  abandons 
them  before  they  have  borne  their  fruits,  or  risks  them 


THE  ACTIVITY  OF  THE  BODY  POLITIC        271 

when  the  consequences  may  prove  dangerous;  but  in  the 
end  it  produces  more  than  any  absolute  government,  and 
if  it  do  fewer  things  well,  it  does  a  great  number  of  things. 
Under  its  sway,  the  transactions  of  the  public  administra 
tion  are  not  nearly  so  important  as  what  is  done  by  private 
exertion.  Democracy  does  not  confer  the  most  skillful  kind  of 
government  upon  the  people,  but  it  produces  that  which  the 
most  skillful  governments  are  frequently  unable  to  awaken, 
namely,  an  all-pervading  and  restless  activity,  a  super 
abundant  force,  and  an  energy  which  is  inseparable  from  it, 
and  which  may,  under  favorable  circumstances,  beget  the 
most  amazing  benefits.  These  are  the  true  advantages  of 
democracy. 

In  the  present  age,  when  the  destinies  of  Christendom 
seem  to  be  in  suspense,  some  hasten  to  assail  democracy  as 
its  foe  while  it  is  yet  in  its  early  growth;  and  others  are  ready 
with  their  vows  of  adoration  for  this  new  duty  which  is 
springing  forth  from  chaos;  but  both  parties  are  very  im 
perfectly  acquainted  with  the  object  of  their  hatred  or  of 
their  desires;  they  strike  in  the  dark,  and  distribute  their 
blows  by  mere  chance. 

We  must  first  understand  what  the  purport  of  society  and 
the  aim  of  government  are  held  to  be.  If  it  be  your  intention 
to  confer  a  certain  elevation  upon  the  human  mind,  and  to 
teach  it  to  regard  the  things  of  this  world  with  generous 
feelings;  to  inspire  men  with  a  scorn  of  mere  temporal  ad 
vantage;  to  give  birth  to  living  convictions,  and  to  keep 
alive  the  spirit  of  honorable  devotedness;  if  you  hold  it  to 
be  a  good  thing  to  refine  the  habits,  to  embellish  the  manners, 
to  cultivate  the  arts  of  a  nation,  and  to  promote  the  love  of 
poetry,  of  beauty,  and  of  renown;  if  you  would  constitute  a 
people  not  unfitted  to  act  with  power  upon  all  other  nations; 
nor  unprepared  for  those  high  enterprises,  which,  whatever 
be  the  result  of  its  efforts,  will  leave  a  name  forever  famous 


272    FOREIGN   OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

in  time  —  if  you  believe  such  to  be  the  principal  object  of 
society,  you  must  avoid  the  government  of  democracy, 
which  would  be  a  very  uncertain  guide  to  the  end  you  have 
in  view. 

But  if  you  hold  it  to  be  expedient  to  divert  the  moral  and 
intellectual  activity  of  man  to  the  production  of  comfort, 
and  to  the  acquirement  of  the  necessaries  of  life;  if  a  clear 
understanding  be  more  profitable  to  men  than  genius;  if 
your  object  be  not  to  stimulate  the  virtues  of  heroism,  but 
to  create  habits  of  peace;  if  you  had  rather  behold  vices 
than  crimes,  and  are  content  to  meet  with  fewer  noble  deeds, 
provided  offenses  be  diminished  in  the  same  proportion;  if, 
instead  of  living  in  the  midst  of  a  brilliant  state  of  society, 
you  are  contented  to  have  prosperity  around  you;  if,  in  short, 
you  are  of  opinion  that  the  principal  object  of  a  government 
is  not  to  confer  the  greatest  possible  share  of  power  and  of 
glory  upon  the  body  of  the  nation,  but  to  insure  the  greatest 
degree  of  enjoyment,  and  the  least  degree  of  misery,  to  each 
of  the  individuals  who  compose  it  —  if  such  be  your  desires, 
you  can  have  no  surer  means  of  satisfying  them  than  by 
equalizing  the  condition  of  men,  and  establishing  democratic 
institutions. 

But  if  the  time  be  past  at  which  such  a  choice  was  possi 
ble,  and  if  some  superhuman  power  impel  us  toward  one  or 
the  other  of  these  two  governments  without  consulting  our 
wishes,  let  us  at  least  endeavor  to  make  the  best  of  that 
which  is  allotted  to  us;  and  let  us  so  inquire  into  its  good  and 
its  evil  propensities  as  to  be  able  to  foster  the  former,  and 
repress  the  latter  to  the  utmost. 


THE  GERMAN  AND  THE  AMERICAN 
TEMPER  i 

KUNO  FBANCKE 

PERHAPS  the  most  fundamental,  or  shall  I  say  elementary, 
difference  between  the  German  temper  and  the  American 
may  be  expressed  by  the  word  "slowness."  Is  there  any  pos 
sible  point  of  view  from  which  slowness  might  appear  to  an 
American  as  something  desirable?  I  think  not.  Indeed,  to 
call  a  thing  or  a  person  slow  seems  to  spread  about  them 
an  atmosphere  of  complete  and  irredeemable  hopelessness. 
Compare  with  this  the  reverently  sturdy  feelings  likely  to 
be  aroused  in  a  German  breast  by  the  words  langsam  und 
feierlich  inscribed  over  a  religious  or  patriotic  hymn,  and  im 
agine  a  German  Mannerchor  singing  such  a  hymn,  with  all 
the  facial  and  tonal  symptoms  of  joyful  and  devout  slowness 
of  cerebral  activity  —  and  you  have  in  brief  compass  a  spec 
imen-demonstration  of  the  difference  in  tempo  in  which  the 
two  national  minds  habitually  move. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  langsamer  Schritt  of  the  German 
military  drill  was  in  the  last  resort  responsible  for  the 
astounding  victories  which  in  1870  shook  the  foundations 
of  Imperial  France.  Similarly,  it  might  be  said  that  slowness 
of  movement  and  careful  deliberateness  are  at  the  bottom  of 

1  As  a  native  German  and  an  American  citizen  and  patriot,  Professor 
Francke  is  peculiarly  fitted  to  recognize  the  merits  and  defects  of  both  the 
German  and  the  American  temper.  The  article  from  which  these  extracts 
are  derived  —  "German  Literature  and  the  American  Temper,"  printed 
in  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  November,  1914,  and  again  in  The  German  Spirit, 
1916  —  was  written  in  the  spring  preceding  the  outbreak  of  war.  It  is  here 
reprinted  through  the  generous  permission  of  Henry  Holt  &  Co. 


274    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

most  things  in  which  Germans  have  excelled.  To  be  sure, 
the  most  recent  development  of  Germany,  particularly  in 
trade  and  industry,  has  been  most  rapid,  and  the  whole  of 
German  life  of  to-day  is  thoroughly  American  in  its  desire  for 
getting  ahead  and  for  working  under  high  pressure.  But  this 
is  a  condition  forced  upon  Germany  from  without  through 
international  competition  and  the  exigencies  of  the  world- 
market  rather  than  springing  from  the  inner  tendency  of 
German  character  itself.  And  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that 
it  was  the  greatest  German  of  modern  times,  Goethe,  who, 
anticipating  the  present  era  of  speed,  uttered  this  warning: 
"Railways,  express  posts,  steamships,  and  all  possible  fa 
cilities  for  swift  communication,  —  these  are  the  things  in 
which  the  civilized  world  is  now  chiefly  concerned,  and  by 
which  it  will  over-civilize  itself  and  arrive  at  mediocrity."  .  .  . 

A  striking  consequence  of  this  difference  of  tempo  in  which 
the  American  mind  and  the  German  naturally  move,  and 
perhaps  the  most  conspicuous  example  of  the  practical  effect 
of  this  difference  upon  National  habits,  is  the  German  regard 
for  authority  and  the  American  dislike  of  it.  For  the  slower 
circulation  in  the  brain  of  the  German  makes  him  more  pas 
sive  and  more  easily  inclined  to  accept  the  decisions  of  others 
for  him,  while  the  self-reliant  and  agile  American  is  instinc 
tively  distrustful  of  any  decision  which  he  has  not  made 
himself. 

Here,  then,  is  another  sharp  distinction  between  the  two 
National  tempers,  another  serious  obstacle  to  the  just  appre 
ciation  of  the  German  spirit  by  the  American. 

I  verily  believe  that  it  is  impossible  for  an  American  to 
understand  the  feelings  which  a  loyal  German  subject, 
particularly  of  the  conservative  sort,  entertains  toward  the 
State  and  its  authority.  That  the  State  should  be  anything 
more  than  an  institution  for  the  protection  and  safeguarding 
of  the  happiness  of  individuals;  that  it  might  be  considered 


THE  GERMAN  AND  THE   AMERICAN  TEMPER    275 

as  a  spiritual,  collective  personality,  leading  a  life  of  its  own, 
beyond  and  above  the  life  of  individuals;  that  service  for  the 
State,  therefore,  or  the  position  of  a  state  official,  should  be 
considered  as  something  essentially  different  from  any  other 
kind  of  useful  employment,  —  these  are  thoughts  utterly  for 
eign  to  the  American  mind,  and  very  near  and  dear  to  the 
heart  of  a  German.  The  American  is  apt  to  receive  an  order 
or  a  communication  from  a  public  official  with  feelings 
of  suspicion  and  with  a  silent  protest;  the  German  is  apt 
to  feel  honored  by  such  a  communication  and  fancy  him 
self  elevated  thereby  to  a  position  of  some  public  import 
ance. 

The  American  is  so  used  to  thinking  of  the  police  as  the 
servant,  and  mostly  a  very  poor  servant,  of  his  private  affairs, 
that  on  placards  forbidding  trespassing  upon  his  grounds 
he  frequently  adds  an  order,  "Police  take  notice";  the  Ger 
man,  especially  if  he  does  not  look  particularly  impressive 
himself,  will  think  long  before  he  makes  up  his  mind  to  ap 
proach  one  of  the  impressive-looking  Schutzleute  to  be  found 
at  every  street  corner,  and  deferentially  ask  him  the  time  of 
day.  The  American  dislikes  the  uniform  as  an  embodiment 
of  irksome  discipline  and  subordination,  he  values  it  only  as 
a  sort  of  holiday  outfit  and  for  parading  purposes;  to  the 
German  the  "King's  Coat"  is  something  sacrosanct  and  in 
violable,  an  embodiment  of  highest  national  service  and 
highest  national  honor.  .  .  . 

Closely  allied  with  this  German  sense  of  authority,  and 
again  in  sharp  contrast  with  American  feeling,  is  the  Ger 
man  distrust  of  the  average  man.  In  order  to  realize  the 
fundamental  polarity  of  the  two  National  tempers  in  this 
respect  also,  one  need  only  think  of  the  two  great  represent 
atives  of  American  and  German  political  life  in  the  nine 
teenth  century:  Lincoln  and  Bismarck.  Lincoln  in  every 
fiber  of  his  being  a  son  of  the  people,  an  advocate  of  the  com- 


276    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

mon  man,  an  ideal  type  of  the  best  instincts  of  the  masses, 
a  man  who  could  express  with  the  simplicity  of  a  child  his 
ineradicable  belief  in  the  essential  right-mindedness  of  the 
plain  folk.  Bismarck  with  every  pulse-beat  of  his  heart  the 
chivalric  vassal  of  his  imperial  master;  the  invincible  cham 
pion  of  the  monarchical  principle;  the  caustic  scorner  of  the 
crowd;  the  man  who,  whenever  he  notices  symptoms  in  the 
crowd  that  he  is  gaining  popularity  with  it,  becomes  sus 
picious  of  himself  and  feels  inclined  to  distrust  the  justice 
of  his  own  cause;  the  merciless  cynic  who  characterizes  the 
futile  oratorical  efforts  of  a  silver-tongued  political  oppo 
nent  by  the  crushing  words,  "He  took  me  for  a  mass 
meeting." 

But  not  only  the  political  life  of  the  two  countries  presents 
this  difference  of  attitude  toward  the  average  man.  The 
great  German  poets  and  thinkers  of  the  last  century  were 
all  of  them  aristocrats  by  temper.  Goethe,  Schiller,  Kant, 
Schelling,  Hegel,  the  Romanticists,  Heine,  Schopenhauer, 
Wagner,  Nietzsche  —  is  there  a  man  among  them  who  would 
not  have  begged  off  from  being  classed  with  the  advocates  of 
common  sense  or  being  called  a  spokesman  of  the  masses? 
What  a  difference  from  two  of  the  most  characteristically 
American  men  of  letters,  Walt  WTiitman  and  Emerson:  the 
one  consciously  and  purposely  a  man  of  the  street,  glorying, 
one  might  say  boastfully,  in  his  comradeship  with  the  crud 
est  and  roughest  of  tramps  and  dock-hands;  the  other  a 
philosopher  of  the  field,  a  modern  St.  Francis,  a  prophet  of 
the  homespun,  an  inspired  interpreter  of  the  ordinary,  — 
perhaps  the  most  enlightened  apostle  of  democracy  that 
ever  lived.  Is  it  not  natural  that  a  people  which,  although 
with  varying  degrees  of  confidence,  acknowledges  such  men 
as  Lincoln,  Walt  Whitman,  and  Emerson  as  the  spokes 
men  of  its  convictions  on  the  value  of  the  ordinary  intellect, 
should  on  the  whole  have  no  instinctive  sympathy  with  a 


THE  GERMAN  AND  THE   AMERICAN  TEMPER    277 

people  whose  intellectual  leaders  are  men  like  Bismarck, 
Goethe,  and  Richard  Wagner? 

To  be  sure,  there  is  another,  a  democratic  side  to  German 
life,  and  this  side  naturally  appeals  to  Americans.  But  Ger 
man  democracy  is  still  in  the  making,  it  has  not  yet  achieved 
truly  great  things,  it  has  not  yet  found  a  truly  great  expo 
nent  either  in  politics  or  in  literature.  In  literature  its  influ 
ence  has  exhausted  itself  largely,  on  the  one  hand,  in  biting 
satire  of  the  ruling  classes,  such  as  is  practiced  to-day  most 
successfully  by  the  contributors  to  Simplizissimus  and  similar 
papers,  sympathizing  with  Socialism;  on  the  other  hand,  in 
idyllic  representations  of  the  healthy  primitiveness  of  peas 
ant  life  and  the  humble  contentedness  and  respectability  of 
the  artisan  class,  the  small  tradespeople  and  subaltern  offi 
cials  —  I  am  thinking,  of  course,  of  such  sturdy  and  charm 
ing  stories  of  provincial  Germany  as  have  been  written  by 
Wilhelm  Raabe,  Fritz  Reuter,  Peter  Rosegger,  and  Heinrich 
Seidel.  It  may  be  that  all  these  men  have  been  paving  the 
way  for  that  great  epoch  of  German  democracy;  it  may  be 
that  some  time  there  will  arise  truly  constructive  minds  that 
will  unite  the  whole  of  the  German  people  in  an  irresistible 
movement  for  popular  rights,  which  would  give  the  average 
man  the  same  dominating  position  which  he  enjoys  in  this 
country.  But  clearly  this  time  has  not  yet  come.  In  Ger 
many,  expert  training  still  overrules  common  sense  and  dilet- 
tanteism. 

The  German  distrust  of  the  average  intellect  has  for  its 
logical  counterpart  another  National  trait  which  it  is  hard 
for  Americans  to  appreciate  —  the  German  bent  for  vague 
intuitions  of  the  infinite.  It  seems  strange  in  this  age  of  cold 
observation  of  facts,  when  the  German  scientist  and  the  Ger 
man  captain  of  industry  appear  as  the  most  striking  embodi 
ments  of  National  greatness,  to  speak  of  vague  intuitions  of 
the  infinite  as  a  German  characteristic.  Yet  throughout  the 


278    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

centuries  this  longing  for  the  infinite  has  been  the  source  of 
much  of  the  best  and  much  of  the  poorest  in  German  in 
tellectual  achievements.  From  this  longing  for  the  infinite 
sprang  the  deep  inwardness  and  spiritual  fervor  which  im 
part  such  a  unique  charm  to  the  contemplative  thought  of 
the  German  Mystics  of  the  fourteenth  century.  In  this 
longing  for  the  infinite  lay  Luther's  greatest  inspiration  and 
strength.  It  was  the  longing  for  the  infinite  which  Goethe 
felt  when  he  made  his  Faust  say,  — 

"  The  thrill  of  awe  is  man's  best  quality." 

This  longing  for  the  infinite  was  the  very  soul  of  German 
Romanticism;  and  all  its  finest  conceptions,  the  Blue  Flower 
of  Novalis,  Fichte's  Salvation  by  the  Will,  Hegel's  Self-revela 
tion  of  the  Idea,  Schopenhauer's  Redemption  from  the  Will, 
Nietzsche's  Revaluation  of  all  Values,  are  nothing  but  ever 
new  attempts  to  find  a  body  for  this  soul. 

But  while  there  has  thus  come  a  great  wealth  of  inspira 
tion  and  moral  idealism  from  this  German  bent  for  reveling 
in  the  infinite,  there  has  also  come  from  it  one  of  the  great 
est  National  defects:  German  vagueness,  German  lack  of 
form,  the  lack  of  sense  for  the  shape  and  proportion  of  finite 
things.  Here,  then,  we  meet  with  another  discrepancy  be 
tween  the  American  and  the  German  character.  For  nothing 
is  more  foreign  to  the  American  than  the  mystic  and  the 
vague,  nothing  appeals  more  to  him  than  what  is  clear-cut, 
easy  to  grasp,  and  well  proportioned;  he  cultivates  "good 
form  "  for  its  own  sake,  not  only  in  his  social  conduct,  but 
also  in  his  literary  and  artistic  pursuits,  and  he  usually  at 
tains  it  easily  and  instinctively,  often  at  the  expense  of  the 
deeper  substance.  To  the  German,  on  the  contrary,  form  is  a 
problem.  He  is  principally  absorbed  in  the  subject-matter, 
the  idea,  the  inner  meaning;  he  struggles  to  give  this  subject- 
matter,  this  inner  meaning,  an  adequate  outer  form;  and  he 


THE  GERMAN  AND  THE   AMERICAN  TEMPER    279 

often  fails.  To  comfort  himself,  he  has  invented  a  technical 
term  designed  to  cover  up  his  failure:  he  falls  back  on  the 
"inner  form"  of  his  productions.  .  .  . 

I  have  reserved  for  the  last  place  in  this  review  of  differ 
ences  of  German  and  American  temper  another  trait  inti 
mately  connected  with  the  German  craving  for  the  infinite; 
I  give  the  last  place  to  the  consideration  of  this  trait,  because 
it  seems  to  me  the  most  un-American  of  all.  I  mean  the  pas 
sion  for  self-surrender. 

I  think  I  need  not  fear  any  serious  opposition  if  I  designate 
self-possession  as  the  cardinal  American  virtue,  and  con 
sequently  as  the  cardinal  American  defect  also.  It  is  impos 
sible  to  imagine  that  so  unmanly  a  proverb  as  the  German  — 

"  Wer  niemals  einen  Rausch  gehabt 
Der  ist  kein  rechter  Mann  "  — 

should  have  originated  in  New  England  or  Ohio.  But  it  is 
impossible  also  to  conceive  that  the  author  of  Werthers  Lei 
den  should  have  obtained  his  youthful  impressions  and  in 
spirations  in  New  York  City.  "Conatus  sese  conservandi 
unicum  virtutis  fundamentum"  —  this  Spinozean  motto 
may  be  said  to  contain  the  essence  of  the  American  deca 
logue  of  conduct.  Always  be  master  of  yourself;  never  be 
tray  any  irritation,  or  disappointment,  or  any  other  weak 
ness;  never  slop  over;  never  give  yourself  away;  never  make 
yourself  ridiculous  —  what  American  would  not  admit  that 
these  are  foremost  among  the  rules  by  which  he  would  like 
to  regulate  his  conduct? 

It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  this  habitual  self-mastery, 
this  habitual  control  over  one's  emotions,  is  one  of  the  chief 
reasons  why  so  much  of  American  life  is  so  uninteresting 
and  so  monotonous.  It  reduces  the  number  of  opportuni 
ties  for  intellectual  friction,  it  suppresses  the  manifestation 
of  strong  individuality,  often  it  impoverishes  the  inner  life 


S80    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

itself.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  has  given  the  American 
that  sureness  of  motive,  that  healthiness  of  appetite,  that 
boyish  frolicsomeness,  that  purity  of  sex-instincts,  that 
quickness  and  litheness  of  manners,  which  distinguish  him 
from  most  Europeans;  it  has  given  to  him  all  those  qualities 
which  insure  success  and  make  their  possessor  a  welcome 
member  of  any  kind  of  society. 

If,  in  contradistinction  to  this  fundamental  American 
trait  of  self-possession,  I  designate  the  passion  for  self-sur 
render  as  perhaps  the  most  significant  expression  of  National 
German  character,  I  am  well  aware  that  here  again,  I  have 
touched  upon  the  gravest  defects  as  well  as  the  highest  vir 
tues  of  German  National  life. 

The  deepest  seriousness  and  the  noblest  loyalty  of  Ger 
man  character  is  rooted  in  this  passion. 

"  Sick  hinzugeben  ganz  und  eine  Wonne 
Zu  fuhlen  die  ewig  sein  muss, 
Ewig,  ewig"  — 

that  is  German  sentiment  of  the  most  unquestionable  sort. 
Not  only  do  the  great  names  in  German  history  —  as  Luther, 
Lessing,  Schiller,  Bismarck,  and  so  many  others  —  stand  in 
a  conspicuous  manner  for  this  thoroughly  German  devotion, 
this  absorption  of  the  individual  in  some  great  cause  or  prin 
ciple,  but  countless  unnamed  men  and  women  are  equally 
typical  representatives  of  this  German  virtue  of  self -surren 
der:  the  housewife  whose  only  thought  is  for  her  family; 
the  craftsman  who  devotes  a  lifetime  of  contented  obscurity 
to  his  daily  work;  the  scholar  who  foregoes  official  and  social 
distinction  in  unremitting  pursuit  of  his  chosen  inquiry;  the 
official  and  the  soldier,  who  sink  their  personality  in  unques 
tioning  service  to  the  State. 

But  a  German  loves  not  only  to  surrender  himself  to  a 
great  cause  or  a  sacred  task,  he  equally  loves  to  surrender 
himself  to  whims.  He  loves  to  surrender  to  feelings,  to  hys- 


THE  GERMAN  AND   THE  AMERICAN  TEMPER     281 

terias  of  all  sorts;  he  loves  to  merge  himself  in  vague  and 
formless  imaginings,  in  extravagant  and  reckless  experience, 
in  what  he  likes  to  call  "living  himself  out."  And  thus  this 
same  passion  for  self-surrender  which  has  produced  the 
greatest  and  noblest  types  of  German  earnestness  and  de 
votion,  has  also  led  to  a  number  of  paradoxical  excrescences 
and  grotesque  distortions  of  German  character.  Nobody  is 
more  prone  to  forget  his  better  self  in  this  so-called  "living 
himself  out"  than  the  German.  Nobody  can  be  a  cruder 
materialist  than  the  German  who  has  persuaded  himself 
that  it  is  his  duty  to  unmask  the  "lie  of  idealism."  Nobody 
can  be  a  more  relentless  destroyer  of  all  that  makes  life  beau 
tiful  and  lovely,  nobody  can  be  a  more  savage  hater  of 
religious  beliefs,  of  popular  tradition,  of  patriotic  instincts, 
than  the  German  who  has  convinced  himself  that  by  the 
uprooting  of  all  these  things  he  performs  the  sacred  task  of 
saving  society. 


THE  "DIVINE  AVERAGE"1 
G.   LOWES   DICKINSON 

THE  great  countries  of  the  East  have  each  a  civilization 
that  is  original,  if  not  independent.  India,  China,  Japan, 
each  has  a  peculiar  outlook  on  the  world.  Not  so  America, 
at  any  rate  in  the  north.  America,  we  might  say,  does  not 
exist;  there  exists  instead  an  offshoot  of  Europe.  Nor  does 
an  "American  spirit"  exist;  there  exists  instead  the  spirit 
of  the  average  Western  man.  Americans  are  immigrants 
and  descendants  of  immigrants.  Putting  aside  the  negroes 
and  a  handful  of  Orientals,  there  is  nothing  to  be  found  here 
that  is  not  to  be  found  in  Western  Europe;  only  here  what 
thrives  is  not  what  is  distinctive  of  the  different  European 
countries,  but  what  is  common  to  them  all.  What  America 
does,  not,  of  course,  in  a  moment,  but  with  incredible  rapid 
ity,  is  to  obliterate  distinctions.  The  Scotchman,  the  Irish 
man,  the  German,  the  Scandinavian,  the  Italian,  even,  I 
suppose,  the  Czech,  drops  his  costume,  his  manner,  his 
language,  his  traditions,  his  beliefs,  and  retains  only  his 
common  Western  humanity.  Transported  to  this  continent 
all  the  varieties  developed  in  Europe  revert  to  the  original 
type,  and  flourish  in  unexampled  vigor  and  force.  It  is  not 
a  new  type  that  is  evolved;  it  is  the  fundamental  type,  grow 
ing  in  a  new  soil,  in  luxuriant  profusion.  Describe  the  aver 
age  Western  man  and  you  describe  the  American;  from  east 
to  west,  from  north  to  south,  everywhere  and  always  the 
same  —  masterful,  aggressive,  unscrupulous,  egotistic,  at 
once  good-natured  and  brutal,  kind  if  you  do  not  cross  him, 

1  Appearances,  part  iv,  chap  ten.  Reprinted  through  the  generous  per 
mission  of  the  author  and  of  Doubleday,  Page  &  Co. 


THE  "DIVINE   AVERAGE"  283 

ruthless  if  you  do,  greedy,  ambitious,  self-reliant,  active  for 
the  sake  of  activity,  intelligent  and  unintellectual,  quick 
witted  and  crass,  contemptuous  of  ideas  but  amorous  of  de 
vices,  valuing  nothing  but  success,  recognizing  nothing  but 
the  actual,  Man  in  the  concrete,  undisturbed  by  spiritual 
life,  the  master  of  methods  and  slave  of  things,  and  there 
fore  the  conqueror  of  the  world,  the  unquestioning,  the  un- 
doubting,  the  child  with  the  muscles  of  a  man,  the  European 
stripped  bare,  and  shown  for  what  he  is,  a  predatory,  unre 
flecting,  naif,  precociously  accomplished  brute. 

One  does  not  then  find  in  America  anything  one  does  not 
find  in  Europe;  but  one  finds  in  Europe  what  one  does  not 
find  in  America.  One  finds,  as  well  as  the  average,  what 
is  below  and  what  is  above  it.  America  has,  broadly  speak 
ing,  no  waste  products.  The  wreckage,  everywhere  evident 
in  Europe,  is  not  evident  there.  Men  do  not  lose  their  self-re 
spect,  they  win  it;  they  do  not  drop  out,  they  work  in.  This 
is  the  great  result  not  of  American  institutions  or  ideas,  but 
of  American  opportunities.  It  is  the  poor  immigrant  who 
ought  to  sing  the  praises  of  this  continent.  He  alone  has  the 
proper  point  of  view;  and  he,  unfortunately,  is  dumb.  But 
often,  when  I  have  contemplated  with  dreary  disgust,  in 
the  outskirts  of  New  York,  the  hideous,  wooden  shanties 
planted  askew  in  wastes  of  garbage,  and  remembered  Naples 
or  Genoa  or  Venice,  suddenly  it  has  been  borne  in  upon  me 
that  the  Italians  living  there  feel  that  they  have  their  feet 
on  the  ladder  leading  to  paradise;  that  for  the  first  time  they 
have  before  them  a  prospect  and  a  hope ;  and  that  while  they 
have  lost,  or  are  losing,  their  manners,  their  beauty,  and 
their  charm,  they  have  gained  something  which,  in  their 
eyes,  and  perhaps  in  reality,  more  than  compensates  for 
losses  they  do  not  seem  to  feel,  they  have  gained  self-respect, 
independence,  and  the  allure  of  the  open  horizon.  "The  vi 
sion  of  America,"  a  friend  writes,  "is  the  vision  of  the  lifting 


284    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

up  of  the  millions. "  This,  I  believe,  is  true,  and  it  is  Amer 
ica's  great  contribution  to  civilization.  I  do  not  forget  it; 
but  neither  shall  I  dwell  upon  it;  for  though  it  is,  I  suppose, 
the  most  important  thing  about  America,  it  is  not  what  I 
come  across  in  my  own  experience.  What  strikes  more  often 
and  more  directly  home  to  me  is  the  other  fact  that  Amer 
ica,  if  she  is  not  burdened  by  masses  lying  below  the  average, 
is  also  not  inspired  by  an  elite  rising  above  it.  Her  distinc 
tion  is  the  absence  of  distinction.  No  wonder  Walt  Whit 
man  sang  the  "Divine  Average."  There  was  nothing  else  in 
America  for  him  to  sing.  But  he  should  not  have  called  it 
divine;  he  should  have  called  it  "human,  all  too  human." 

Or  is  it  divine?  Divine  somehow  in  its  potentialities? 
Divine  to  a  deeper  vision  than  mine?  I  was  writing  this  at 
Brooklyn,  in  a  room  that  looks  across  the  East  River  to  New 
York.  And  after  putting  down  those  words,  "human,  all 
too  human,"  I  stepped  out  on  to  the  terrace.  Across  the 
gulf  before  me  went  shooting  forward  and  back  interminable 
rows  of  fiery  shuttles;  and  on  its  surface  seemed  to  float 
blazing  basilicas.  Beyond  rose  into  the  darkness  a  dazzling 
tower  of  light,  dusking  and  shimmering,  primrose  and  green, 
up  to  a  diadem  of  gold.  About  it  hung  galaxies  and  constel 
lations,  outshining  the  firmament  of  stars;  and  all  the  air 
was  full  of  strange  voices,  more  than  human,  ingeminating 
Babylonian  oracles  out  of  the  bosom  of  night.  This  is  New 
York.  This  it  is  that  the  average  man  has  done,  he  knows 
not  why;  this  is  the  symbol  of  his  work,  so  much  more  than 
himself,  so  much  more  than  what  seems  to  be  itself  in  the 
common  light  of  day.  America  does  not  know  what  she  is 
doing,  neither  do  I  know,  nor  any  man.  But  the  impulse 
that  drives  her,  so  mean  and  poor  to  the  critic's  eye,  has  per 
haps  more  significance  in  the  eye  of  God;  and  the  optimism 
of  this  continent,  so  seeming-frivolous,  is  justified,  may  be, 
by  reason  lying  beyond  its  ken. 


THE  FRAME  OF  NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT l 

JAMES  BRYCE 

THE  account  which  has  been  so  far  given  of  the  working 
of  the  American  Government  has  been  necessarily  an  ac 
count  rather  of  its  mechanism  than  of  its  spirit.  Its  practical 
character,  its  temper  and  color,  so  to  speak,  largely  depend 
on  the  party  system  by  which  it  is  worked,  and  on  what  may 
be  called  the  political  habits  of  the  people.  These  will  be  de 
scribed  in  later  chapters.  Here,  however,  before  quitting  the 
study  of  the  constitutional  organs  of  government,  it  is  well 
to  sum  up  the  criticisms  we  have  been  led  to  make,  and  to 
add  a  few  remarks,  for  which  no  fitting  place  could  be  found 
in  preceding  chapters,  on  the  general  features  of  the  National 
Government. 

I.  No  part  of  the  Constitution  cost  its  framers  so  much 
time  and  trouble  as  the  method  of  choosing  the  President. 
They  saw  the  evils  of  a  popular  vote.  They  saw  also  the  ob 
jections  to  placing  in  the  hands  of  Congress  the  election  of 
a  person  whose  chief  duty  it  was  to  hold  Congress  in  check. 
The  plan  of  having  him  selected  by  judicious  persons,  spe 
cially  chosen  by  the  people  for  that  purpose,  seemed  to  meet 
both  difficulties,  and  was  therefore  recommended  with  con 
fidence.  The  Presidential  electors  have,  however,  turned 
out  mere  ciphers,  and  the  President  is  practically  chosen 
by  the  people  at  large.  The  only  importance  which  the 
elaborate  machinery  provided  in  the  Constitution  retains, 
is  that  it  prevents  a  simple  popular  vote  in  which  the 
majority  of  the  Nation  should  prevail,  and  makes  the 

1  The  American  Commonwealth  (Revised  Edition),  part  i,  chapter  xxvi* 
Reprinted  through  the  generous  permission  of  The  Macmillan  Company. 


286    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

issue  of  the  election  turn  on  the  voting  in  certain  "pivotal" 
States. 

II.  The  choice  of  the  President,  by  what  is  now  practically 
a  simultaneous  popular  vote,  not  only  involves  once  in  every 
four  years  a  tremendous  expenditure  of  energy,  time,  and 
money,  but  induces  of  necessity  a  crisis  which,  if  it  happens 
to  coincide  with  any  passion  powerfully  agitating  the  people, 
may  be  dangerous  to  the  Commonwealth. 

III.  There  is  always  a  risk  that  the  result  of  a  Presiden 
tial  election  may  be  doubtful  or  disputed  on  the  ground  of 
error,  fraud,  or  violence.  When  such  a  case  arises,  the  diffi 
culty  of  finding  an  authority  competent  to  deal  with  it,  and 
likely  to  be  trusted,  is  extreme.    Moreover,  the  question 
may  not  be  settled  until  the  preexisting  Executive  has,  by 
effluxion  of  time,  ceased  to  have  a  right  to  the  obedience  of 
the  citizens.  The  experience  of  the  election  of  1876  illustrates 
these  dangers.   Such  a  risk  of  interregna  is  incidental  to  all 
systems,  monarchic  or  republican,  which  make  the  execu 
tive   head   elective,   as   witnesses   the   Romano-Germanic 
Empire  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  the  Papacy.  But  it  is  more 
serious  where  he  is  elected  by  the  people  than  where,  as  in 
France  and  Switzerland,  he  is  chosen  by  the  Chambers. 

IV.  The  change  of  the  higher  executive  officers,  and  of 
many  of  the  lower  executive  officers  also,  which  usually  takes 
place  once  in  four  years,  gives  a  jerk  to  the  machinery,  and 
causes  a  discontinuity  of  policy,  unless,  of  course,  the  Presi 
dent  has  served  only  one  term,  and  is  reflected.   Moreover, 
there  is  generally  a  loss  either  of  responsibility  or  of  efficiency 
in  the  executive  chief  magistrate  during  the  last  part  of  his 
term.    An  outgoing  President  may  possibly  be  a  reckless 
President,  because  he  has  little  to  lose  by  misconduct,  little 
to  hope  from  good  conduct.    He  may  therefore  abuse  his 
patronage,  or  gratify  his  whims  with  impunity.    But  more 
often  he  is  a  weak  President.   He  has  little  influence  with 


THE   FRAME   OF   NATIONAL   GOVERNMENT     287 

Congress,  because  his  patronage  will  soon  come  to  an  end, 
little  hold  on  the  people,  who  are  already  speculating  on  the 
policy  of  his  successor.  His  Secretary  of  State  may  be  un 
able  to  treat  boldly  with  foreign  powers,  who  perceive  that 
he  has  a  diminished  influence  in  the  Senate,  and  know  that 
the  next  secretary  may  have  different  views. 

The  question  whether  the  United  States,  which  no  doubt 
needed  a  President  in  1789  to  typify  the  then  created  politi 
cal  unity  of  the  Nation,  might  not  now  dispense  with  one,  has 
never  been  raised  in  America,  where  the  people,  though  dis 
satisfied  with  the  method  of  choice,  value  the  office  because 
it  is  independent  of  Congress  and  directly  responsible  to  the 
people.  Americans  condemn  any  plan  under  which,  as  lately 
befell  in  France,  the  legislature  can  drive  a  President  from 
power  and  itself  proceed  to  choose  a  new  one. 

V.  The  Vice-President's  office  is  ill-conceived.  His  only 
ordinary  function  is  to  act  as  chairman  of  the  Senate,  but  as 
he  does  not  appoint  the  committees  of  that  House,  and  has 
not  even  a  vote  (except  a  casting  vote)  in  it,  this  function  is 
of  little  moment.  If,  however,  the  President  dies,  or  becomes 
incapable  of  acting,  or  is  removed  from  office,  the  Vice-  Pres 
ident  succeeds  to  the  Presidency.  What  is  the  result?  The 
place  being  in  itself  unimportant,  the  choice  of  a  candidate 
for  it  excites  little  interest,  and  is  chiefly  used  by  the  party 
managers  as  a  means  of  conciliating  a  section  of  their  party. 
It  becomes  what  is  called  "a  complimentary  nomination." 
The  man  elected  Vice-President  is  therefore  rarely  if  ever  a 
man  then  in  the  front  rank.  But  when  the  President  dies 
during  his  term  of  office,  which  has  happened  to  five  out  of 
the  twenty  Presidents,  this  possibly  second-class  man  steps 
into  a  great  place  for  which  he  was  never  intended.  Some 
times,  as  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Arthur,  he  fills  the  place  respect 
ably.  Sometimes,  as  in  that  of  Andrew  Johnson,  he  throws 
the  country  into  confusion. 


288    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES 

He  is  aut  nullus  aut  Caesar. 

VI.  The  defects  in  the  structure  and  working  of  Congress, 
and  in  its  relations  to  the  Executive,  have  been  so  fully 
dwelt  on  already  that  it  is  enough  to  refer  summarily  to 
them.  They  are  — 

The  discontinuity  of  Congressional  policy. 

The  want  of  adequate  control  over  officials. 

The  want  of  opportunities  for  the  Executive  to  influence 
the  Legislature. 

The  want  of  any  authority  charged  to  secure  the  passing 
of  such  legislation  as  the  country  needs. 

The  frequency  of  disputes  between  three  coordinate 
powers,  the  President,  the  Senate,  and  the  House. 

The  maintenance  of  a  continuous  policy  is  a  difficulty  in 
all  popular  governments.  In  the  United  States  it  is  specially 
so,  because  — 

The  Executive  head  and  his  Ministers  are  necessarily 
(unless  when  a  President  is  reflected)  changed  once 
every  four  years. 

One  House  of  Congress  is  changed  every  two  years. 

Neither  House  recognizes  permanent  leaders. 

No  accord  need  exist  between  Congress  and  the  Executive. 

There  may  not  be  such  a  thing  as  a  party  in  power,  in 
the  European  sense  of  the  term,  because  the  party  to  which 
the  Executive  belongs  may  be  in  a  minority  in  one  or  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  in  which  case  it  cannot  do  anything 
which  requires  fresh  legislation,  —  may  be  in  a  minority  in 
the  Senate,  in  which  case  it  can  take  no  administrative  act 
of  importance. 

There  is  little  true  leadership  in  political  action,  because 
the  most  prominent  man  has  no  recognized  party  authority. 
Congress  was  not  elected  to  support  him.  He  cannot  threaten 
disobedient  followers  with  a  dissolution  of  Parliament  like 
an  English  Prime  Minister.  He  has  not  even  the  French 


THE   FRAME   OF   NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT     289 

President's  right  of  dissolving  the  House  with  the  consent 
of  the  Senate. 

There  is  often  no  general  and  continuous  Cabinet  policy, 
because  the  Cabinet  has  no  authority  over  Congress,  may 
perhaps  have  no  influence  with  it. 

There  is  no  general  or  continuous  legislative  policy,  be 
cause  the  legislature,  having  neither  recognized  leaders,  nor 
a  guiding  committee,  acts  through  a  large  number  of  com 
mittees,  independent  of  one  another,  and  seldom  able  to 
bring  their  measures  to  maturity.  What  continuity  exists  is 
due  to  the  general  acceptance  of  a  few  broad  maxims,  such 
as  that  of  non-intervention  in  the  affairs  of  the  Old  World, 
and  to  the  fact  that  a  large  nation  does  not  frequently  or 
lightly  change  its  views  upon  leading  principles.  In  minor 
matters  of  legislation  there  is  little  settled  policy,  for  the 
Houses  trifle  with  questions,  take  them  up  in  one  session  and 
drop  them  the  next,  seem  insensible  to  the  duty  of  complet 
ing  work  once  begun,  and  are  too  apt  to  yield  to  the  pressure 
which  sections,  or  even  influential  individuals  in  their  con 
stituencies,  exert  upon  them  to  arrest  some  measure  the 
public  interest  demands.  Neither  is  there  any  security  that 
Congress  will  attend  to  such  defects  in  the  administrative 
system  of  the  country  as  may  need  a  statute  to  correct  them. 
In  Europe  the  daily  experience  of  the  administrative  de 
partments  discloses  faults  or  omissions  in  the  law  which 
involve  needless  trouble  to  officials,  needless  cost  to  the 
treasury,  needless  injustice  to  classes  of  the  people.  Some 
times  for  their  own  sakes,  sometimes  from  that  desire  to  see 
things  well  done  which  is  the  life  breath  of  a  good  public 
servant,  the  permanent  officials  call  the  attention  of  their 
parliamentary  chief,  the  minister,  to  the  defective  state  of 
the  law,  and  submit  to  him  the  draft  of  a  bill  to  amend  it. 
He  brings  in  this  bill,  and  if  it  involves  no  matter  of  political 
controversy  (which  it  rarely  does),  he  gets  it  passed.  As  an 


290    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

American  Minister  has  no  means  (except  by  the  favor  of  a 
committee)  of  getting  anything  he  proposes  attended  to  by 
Congress,  it  is  a  mere  chance  if  such  amending  statutes  as 
these  are  introduced  or  pass  into  law.  And  it  sometimes 
happens  that  when  he  sees  the  need  for  an  improvement  he 
cannot  carry  it,  because  selfish  interests  oppose  it,  and  he 
has  not  that  command  of  a  majority  by  means  of  which  a 
European  minister  is  able  to  effect  reforms. 

These  defects  are  all  reducible  to  two.  There  is  an  excessive 
friction  in  the  American  system,  a  waste  of  force  in  the  strife 
of  various  bodies  and  persons  created  to  check  and  balance 
one  another.  There  is  a  want  of  executive  unity,  and  there 
fore  a  possible  want  of  executive  vigor.  Power  is  so  much 
subdivided  that  it  is  hard  at  a  given  moment  to  concentrate 
it  for  prompt  and  effective  action.  In  fact,  this  happens 
only  when  a  distinct  majority  of  the  people  are  so  clearly  of 
one  mind  that  the  several  coordinate  organs  of  government 
obey  this  majority,  uniting  their  efforts  to  serve  its  will. 

VII.  The  relations  of  the  people  to  the  legislature  are  in 
every  free  country  so  much  the  most  refined  and  delicate, 
as  well  as  so  much  the  most  important  part  of  the  whole 
scheme  and  doctrine  of  government,  that  we  must  not  ex 
pect  to  find  perfection  anywhere.  But  comparing  America 
with  Great  Britain  since  1832,  the  working  of  the  representa 
tive  system  in  America  seems  somewhat  inferior. 

There  are  four  essentials  to  the  excellence  of  a  representa 
tive  system :  — 

That  the  representatives  shall  be  chosen  from  among  the 
best  men  of  the  country,  and,  if  possible,  from  its  natural 
leaders. 

That  they  shall  be  strictly  and  palpably  responsible  to 
their  constituents  for  their  speeches  and  votes. 

That  they  shall  have  courage  enough  to  resist  a  momen 
tary  impulse  of  their  constituents  which  they  think  mis- 


THE  FRAME  OF  NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT     291 

chievous;  i.e..  shall  be  representatives  rather  than  mere 
delegates. 

That  they  individually,  and  the  chamber  they  form,  shall 
have  a  reflex  action  on  the  people;  i.e.,  that  while  they 
derive  authority  from  the  people,  they  shall  also  give 
the  people  the  benefit  of  the  experience  they  acquire  in 
the  chamber,  as  well  as  of  the  superior  knowledge  and 
capacity  they  may  be  presumed  to  possess. 
Americans  hold,  and  no  doubt  correctly,  that  of  these 
four  requisities,  the  first,  third,  and  fourth  are  not  attained 
in  their  country.   Congressmen  are  not  chosen  from  among 
the  best  citizens.  They  mostly  deem  themselves  mere  dele 
gates.  They  do  not  pretend  to  lead  the  people,  being,  indeed, 
seldom  specially  qualified  to  do  so. 

That  the  second  requisite,  responsibility,  is  not  fully  real 
ized  seems  surprising  in  a  democratic  country,  and  indeed 
almost  inconsistent  with  that  conception  of  the  representa 
tive  as  a  delegate,  which  is  supposed,  perhaps  erroneously, 
to  be  characteristic  of  democracies.  Still  the  fact  is  there. 
One  cause,  already  explained,  is  to  be  found  in  the  com 
mittee  system.  Another  is  the  want  of  organized  leadership 
in  Congress.  In  Europe,  a  member's  responsibility  takes  the 
form  of  his  being  bound  to  support  the  leader  of  his  party  on 
all  important  divisions.  In  America,  this  obligation  attaches 
only  when  the  party  has  "gone  into  caucus,"  and  there  re 
solved  upon  its  course.  Not  having  the  right  to  direct,  the 
leader  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  the  action  of  the  rank 
and  file.  As  a  third  cause  we  may  note  the  fact  that  owing 
to  the  restricted  competence  of  Congress  many  of  the  ques 
tions  which  chiefly  interest  the  voter  do  not  come  before 
Congress  at  all,  so  that  its  proceedings  are  not  followed  with 
the  close  and  keen  attention  which  the  debates  and  divisions 
of  European  chambers  excite,  and  some  may  think  that  a 
fourth  cause  is  found  in  the  method  by  which  candidates  for 


292    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

membership  of  Congress  are  selected.  That  method  is  de 
scribed  in  later  chapters.  Its  effect  has  been  to  make  Con 
gressmen  (including  Senators)  be,  and  feel  themselves  to  be, 
the  nominees  of  the  party  organizations  rather  than  of  the 
citizens,  and  thus  it  has  interposed  what  may  for  some  pur 
poses  be  called  a  sort  of  non-conducting  medium  between 
the  people  and  their  representatives. 

In  general  the  reciprocal  action  and  reaction  between  the 
electors  and  Congress,  what  is  commonly  called  the  "touch " 
of  the  people  with  their  agents,  is  not  sufficiently  close, 
quick,  and  delicate.  Representatives  ought  to  give  light  and 
leading  to  the  people,  just  as  the  people  give  stimulus  and 
momentum  to  their  representative.  This  incidental  merit 
of  the  parliamentary  system  is  among  its  greatest  merits. 
But  in  America  the  action  of  the  voter  fails  to  tell  upon  Con 
gress.  He  votes  for  a  candidate  of  his  own  party,  but  he  does 
not  convey  to  that  candidate  an  impulse  toward  the  carry 
ing  of  particular  measures,  because  the  candidate  when  in 
Congress  will  be  practically  unable  to  promote  those  meas 
ures,  unless  he  happens  to  be  placed  on  the  committee  to 
which  they  are  referred.  Hence  the  citizen,  when  he  casts  his 
ballot,  can  seldom  feel  that  he  is  advancing  any  measure  or 
policy,  except  the  vague  and  general  policy  indicated  in  his 
party  platform.  He  is  voting  for  a  party,  but  he  does  not 
know  what  the  party  will  do,  and  for  a  man,  but  a  man 
whom  chance  may  deprive  of  the  opportunity  of  advocat 
ing  the  measures  he  cares  most  for. 

Conversely,  Congress  does  not  guide  and  illuminate  its 
constituents.  It  is  amorphous,  and  has  little  initiative.  It 
does  not  focus  the  light  of  the  Nation,  does  not  warm  its  im 
agination,  does  not  dramatize  principles  in  the  deeds  and 
characters  of  men.  This  happens  because,  in  ordinary 
times,  it  lacks  great  leaders,  and  the  most  obvious  cause  why 
it  lacks  them,  is  its  disconnection  from  the  Executive.  As  it 


THE  FRAME  OF  NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT     293 

is  often  devoid  of  such  men,  so  neither  does  the  country  ha 
bitually  come  to  it  to  look  for  them.  In  the  old  days,  neither 
Hamilton,  nor  Jefferson,  nor  John  Adams;  in  later  days, 
neither  Stanton,  nor  Grant,  nor  Tilden,  nor  Cleveland,  nor 
Roosevelt,  ever  sat  in  Congress.  Lincoln  sat  for  two  years 
only,  and  owed  little  of  his  subsequent  eminence  to  his 
career  there. 

VIIL  The  independence  rof  the  Judiciary,  due  to  its  hold 
ing  for  life,  has  been  a  conspicuous  merit  of  the  Federal 
system,  as  compared  with  the  popular  election  and  short 
terms  of  judges  in  most  of  the  States.  Yet  even  the  Federal 
Judiciary  is  not  secure  from  the  attacks  of  the  two  other 
powers,  if  combined.  For  the  Legislature  may  by  statute 
increase  the  number  of  Federal  Justices,  increase  it  to  any 
extent,  since  the  Constitution  leaves  the  number  undeter 
mined,  and  the  President  may  appoint  persons  whom  he 
knows  to  be  actuated  by  a  particular  political  bias,  perhaps 
even  prepared  to  decide  specific  questions  in  a  particular 
sense.  Thus  he  and  Congress  together  may  obtain  such  a 
judicial  determination  of  any  constitutional  question  as 
they  join  in  desiring,  even  although  that  question  has  been 
heretofore  differently  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court.  The 
only  safeguard  is  in  the  disapproval  of  the  people. 

It  is  worth  remarking  that  the  points  in  which  the  Ameri 
can  frame  of  National  Government  has  proved  least  suc 
cessful  are  those  which  are  most  distinctly  artificial;  i.e., 
those  which  are  not  the  natural  outgrowth  of  old  institu 
tions  and  well-formed  habits,  but  devices  consciously  in 
troduced  to  attain  specific  ends.  The  election  of  the  Presi 
dent  and  Vice-President  by  electors  appointed  ad  hoc  is  such 
a  device.  The  functions  of  the  Judiciary  do  not  belong  to 
this  category;  they  are  the  natural  outgrowth  of  the  com 
mon-law  doctrines  and  of  the  previous  histories  of  the  colo 
nies  and  States;  all  that  is  novel  in  them,  for  it  can  hardly 


294     FOREIGN   OPINION   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES 

be  called  artificial,  is  the  creation  of  courts  coextensive  with 
the  sphere  of  the  National  Government. 

All  the  main  features  of  American  Government  may  be  de 
duced  from  two  principles.  One  is  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people,  which  expresses  itself  in  the  fact  that  the  supreme 
law  —  the  Constitution  —  is  the  direct  utterance  of  their 
will,  that  they  alone  can  amend  it,  that  it  prevails  against 
every  other  law,  that  whatever  powers  it  does  not  delegate 
are  deemed  to  be  reserved  to  it,  that  every  power  in  the 
State  draws  its  authority,  whether  directly,  like  the  House 
of  Representatives,  or  in  the  second  degree,  like  the  Presi 
dent  and  the  Senate,  or  in  the  third  degree,  like  the  Fed 
eral  Judiciary,  from  the  people,  and  is  legally  responsible 
to  the  people,  and  not  to  any  one  of  the  other  powers. 

The  second  principle,  itself  a  consequence  of  this  first  one, 
is  the  distrust  of  the  various  organs  and  agents  of  Govern 
ment.  The  States  are  carefully  safeguarded  against  aggres 
sion  by  the  Central  Government.  So  are  the  individual 
citizens.  Each  organ  of  Government,  the  Executive,  the 
Legislature,  the  Judiciary,  is  made  a  jealous  observer  and  re- 
strainer  of  the  others.  Since  the  people,  being  too  numerous, 
cannot  directly  manage  their  affairs,  but  must  commit  them 
to  agents,  they  have  resolved  to  prevent  abuses  by  trusting 
each  agent  as  little  as  possible,  and  subjecting  him  to  the 
oversight  of  other  agents,  who  will  harass  and  check  him  if 
he  attempts  to  overstep  his  instructions. 

Some  one  has  said  that  the  American  Government  and 
Constitution  are  based  on  the  theology  of  Calvin  and  the 
philosophy  of  Hobbes.  This  at  least  is  true,  that  there  is  a 
hearty  Puritanism  in  the  view  of  human  nature  which  per 
vades  the  instrument  of  1787.  It  is  the  work  of  men  who 
believed  in  original  sin,  and  were  resolved  to  leave  open 
for  transgressors  no  door  which  they  could  possibly  shut. 
Compare  this  spirit  with  the  enthusiastic  optimism  of  the 


THE   FRAME   OF  NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT    295 

Frenchmen  of  1789.  It  is  not  merely  a  difference  of  race 
temperaments;  it  is  a  difference  of  fundamental  ideas. 

With  the  spirit  of  Puritanism  there  is  blent  a  double  por 
tion  of  the  spirit  of  legalism.  Not  only  is  there  no  reliance 
on  ethical  forces  to  help  the  Government  to  work;  there  is 
an  elaborate  machinery  of  law  to  preserve  the  equilibrium 
of  each  of  its  organs.  The  aim  of  the  Constitution  seems  to 
be  not  so  much  to  attain  great  common  ends  by  securing  a 
good  government  as  to  avert  the  evils  which  will  flow,  not 
merely  from  a  bad  government,  but  from  any  government 
strong  enough  to  threaten  the  preexisting  communities  or 
the  individual  citizen. 

The  spirit  of  1776,  as  it  speaks  to  us  from  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  and  the  glowing  periods  of  Patrick  Henry, 
was  largely  a  revolutionary  spirit,  revolutionary  in  its  faith 
in  abstract  principles,  revolutionary  also  in  its  determina 
tion  to  carry  through  a  tremendous  political  change  in  re 
spect  of  grievance  which  the  calm  judgment  of  history  does 
not  deem  intolerable,  and  which  might  probably  have  been 
redressed  by  less  trenchant  methods.  But  the  spirit  of  1787 
was  an  English  spirit,  and  therefore  a  conservative  spirit, 
tinged,  no  doubt,  by  the  hatred  to  tyranny  developed  in  the 
revolutionary  struggle,  tinged  also,  by  the  nascent  dislike  to 
inequality,  but  in  the  main  an  English  spirit,  which  desired 
to  walk  in  the  old  paths  of  precedent,  which  thought  of  gov 
ernment  as  a  means  of  maintaining  order  and  securing  to 
every  one  his  rights,  rather  than  as  a  great  ideal  power, 
capable  of  guiding  and  developing  a  nation's  life.  And  thus, 
though  the  Constitution  of  1789  represented  a  great  advance 
on  the  still  oligarchic  system  of  contemporary  England,  it 
was  yet,  if  we  regard  simply  its  legal  provisions,  the  least 
democratic  of  democracies.  Had  the  points  which  it  left 
undetermined,  as  for  instance  the  qualifications  of  congres 
sional  electors,  been  dealt  with  in  an  aristocratic  spirit,  had 


296    FOREIGN   OPINION   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES 

the  legislation  of  Congress  and  of  the  several  States  taken 
an  aristocratic  turn,  it  might  have  grown  into  an  aristocratic 
system.  The  democratic  character  which  it  now  possesses  is 
largely  the  result  of  subsequent  events,  which  have  changed 
the  conditions  under  which  it  had  to  work,  and  have  de 
livered  its  development  into  the  hands  of  that  passion  for 
equality  which  has  become  a  powerful  factor  in  the  modern 
world  everywhere. 

He  who  should  desire  to  draw  an  indictment  against  the 
American  scheme  of  government  might  make  it  a  long  one, 
and  might  for  every  count  in  it  cite  high  American  authority 
and  adduce  evidence  from  American  history.  Yet  a  Eu 
ropean  reader  would  greatly  err  were  he  to  conclude  that 
this  scheme  of  government  is  a  failure,  or  is,  indeed,  for  the 
purpose  of  the  country,  inferior  to  the  political  system  of  any 
of  the  great  nations  of  the  Old  World. 

All  governments  are  faulty;  and  an  equally  minute  analy 
sis  of  the  Constitution  of  England,  or  France,  or  Germany 
would  disclose  mischiefs  as  serious,  relatively  to  the  prob 
lems  with  which  those  states  have  to  deal,  as  those  we  have 
noted  in  the  American  system.  To  any  one  familiar  with 
the  practical  working  of  free  governments  it  is  a  standing 
wonder  that  they  work  at  all.  The  first  impulse  of  mankind 
is  to  follow  and  obey;  servitude  rather  than  freedom  is  their 
natural  state.  With  freedom,  when  it  emerges  among  the 
more  progressive  races,  there  come  dissension  and  faction; 
and  it  takes  many  centuries  to  form  those  habits  of  com 
promise,  that  love  of  order,  and  that  respect  for  public 
opinion  which  make  democracy  tolerable.  What  keeps  a 
free  government  going  is  the  good  sense  and  patriotism  of 
the  people,  or  of  the  guiding  class,  embodied  in  usages  and 
traditions  which  it  is  hard  to  describe,  but  which  find,  in 
moments  of  difficulty,  remedies  for  the  inevitable  faults  of 
the  system.  Now,  this  good  sense  and  that  power  of  sub- 


THE   FRAME   OF   NATIONAL   GOVERNMENT     297 

ordinating  sectional  to  national  interests  which  we  call 
patriotism,  exist  in  higher  measure  in  America,  than  in  any 
of  the  great  states  of  Europe.  And  the  United  States,  more 
than  any  other  country,  are  governed  by  public  opinion, 
that  is  to  say,  by  the  general  sentiment  of  the  mass  of  the 
nation,  which  all  the  organs  of  the  National  Government 
and  of  the  State  Governments  look  to  and  obey. 

A  philosopher  from  Jupiter  or  Saturn  who  should  examine 
the  Constitution  of  England  or  that  of  America  would  prob 
ably  pronounce  that  such  a  body  of  complicated  devices,  full 
of  opportunities  for  conflict  and  deadlock,  could  not  work 
at  all.  Many  of  those  who  examined  the  American  Constitu 
tion  when  it  was  launched  did  point  to  a  multitude  of  dif 
ficulties,  and  confidently  predicted  its  failure.  Still  more 
confidently  did  the  European  enemies  of  free  government  de 
clare  in  the  crisis  of  the  War  of  Secession  that  "the  republi 
can  bubble  had  burst."  Some  of  these  censures  were  well 
grounded,  though  there  were  also  defects  which  had  escaped 
criticism,  and  were  first  disclosed  by  experience.  But  the 
Constitution  has  lived  on  in  spite  of  all  defects,  and  seems 
stronger  now  than  at  any  previous  epoch. 

Every  Constitution,  like  every  man,  has  "the  defects  of 
its  good  qualities."  If  a  nation  desires  perfect  stability,  it 
must  put  up  with  a  certain  slowness  and  cumbrousness ;  it 
must  face  the  possibility  of  a  want  of  action  where  action  is 
called  for.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  seeks  to  obtain  executive 
speed  and  vigor  by  a  complete  concentration  of  power,  it 
must  run  the  risk  that  that  power  will  be  abused  and  irrev 
ocable  steps  too  hastily  taken.  "The  liberty-loving  people 
of  every  country,"  says  Judge  Cooley,  "take  courage  from 
American  freedom,  and  find  augury  of  better  days  for  them 
selves  from  American  prosperity.  But  America  is  not  so 
much  an  example  in  her  liberty  as  in  the  covenanted  and  en 
during  securities  which  are  intended  to  prevent  liberty  de- 


298    FOREIGN   OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

generating  into  license,  and  to  establish  a  feeling  of  trust 
and  repose  under  a  beneficent  government,  whose  excellence, 
so  obvious  in  its  freedom,  is  still  more  conspicuous  in  its 
careful  provision  for  permanence  and  stability."  Those 
faults  on  which  I  have  laid  stress,  the  waste  of  power  by 
friction,  the  want  of  unity  and  vigor  in  the  conduct  of 
affairs  by  Executive  and  Legislature,  are  the  price  which  the 
Americans  pay  for  the  autonomy  of  their  States,  and  for  the 
permanence  of  the  equilibrium  among  the  various  branches 
of  their  Government.  They  pay  this  price  willingly,  because 
these  defects  are  far  less  dangerous  to  the  body  politic  than 
they  would  be  in  a  European  country.  Take,  for  instance, 
the  shortcomings  of  Congress  as  a  legislative  authority. 
Every  European  country  is  surrounded  by  difficulties  which 
legislation  must  deal  with,  and  that  promptly.  But  in 
America,  where  those  relics  of  mediaeval  privilege  and  in 
justice  that  still  cumber  most  parts  of  the  Old  World  either 
never  existed,  or  were  long  ago  abolished,  where  all  the  con 
ditions  of  material  prosperity  exist  in  ample  measure,  and 
the  development  of  material  resources  occupies  men's  minds, 
where  nearly  all  social  reforms  lie  within  the  sphere  of  State 
action,  —  in  America  there  has  generally  been  less  desire 
than  in  Europe  for  a  perennial  stream  of  Federal  legislation. 
People  are  contented  if  things  go  on  fairly  well  as  they  are. 
Political  philosophers,  or  philanthropists,  perceive  not  a 
few  improvements  which  Federal  statutes  might  effect,  but 
the  mass  of  the  Nation  has  not  greatly  complained  and  the 
wise  see  Congress  so  often  on  the  point  of  committing  mis 
chievous  errors  that  they  do  not  deplore  the  barrenness  of 
session  after  session. 

Every  European  State  has  to  fear  not  only  the  rivalry  but 
the  aggression  of  its  neighbors.  Even  Britain,  so  long  safe  in 
her  insular  home,  has  lost  some  of  her  security  by  the  growth 
of  steam  navies,  and  has  in  her  Indian  and  colonial  posses- 


THE   FRAME   OF   NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT     299 

sions  given  pledges  to  Fortune  all  over  the  globe.  She,  like 
the  powers  of  the  European  continent,  must  maintain  her 
system  of  government  in  full  efficiency  for  war  as  well  as  for 
peace,  and  cannot  afford  to  let  her  armaments  decline,  her 
finances  become  disordered,  the  vigor  of  her  Executive  au 
thority  be  impaired,  sources  of  internal  discord  continue  to 
prey  upon  her  vitals.  But  America  has  lived  in  a  world  of 
her  own,  ipsa  suis  pollens  opibus,  nihil  indigka  nostri.  Safe 
from  attack,  safe  even  from  menace,  she  hears  from  afar  the 
warring  cries  of  European  races  and  faiths,  as  the  gods  of 
Epicurus  listened  to  the  murmurs  of  the  unhappy  earth 
spread  out  beneath  their  golden  dwellings, 

"  Sejuncta  a  rebus  nostris  remotaque  longe." 

Had  Canada  or  Mexico  grown  to  be  a  great  power,  had 
France  not  sold  Louisiana,  or  had  England,  rooted  on  the 
American  continent,  become  a  military  despotism,  the 
United  States  could  not  indulge  the  easy  optimism  which 
makes  them  tolerate  the  faults  of  their  Government.  As  it 
is,  that  which  might  prove  to  a  European  State  a  mortal  dis 
ease  is  here  nothing  worse  than  a  teasing  ailment.  Since  the 
War  of  Secession  ended,  no  serious  danger  has  arisen  either 
from  within  or  from  without  to  alarm  transatlantic  states 
men.  Social  convulsions  from  within,  warlike  assaults  from 
without,  seem  now  as  unlikely  to  try  the  fabric  of  the  Amer 
ican  Constitution  as  an  earthquake  to  rend  the  walls  of  the 
Capitol.  This  is  why  the  Americans  submit,  not  merely  pa 
tiently  but  hopefully,  to  the  defects  of  their  Government. 
The  vessel  may  not  be  any  better  built,  or  found,  or  rigged 
than  are  those  which  carry  the  fortunes  of  the  great  nations 
of  Europe.  She  is  certainly  not  better  navigated.  But  for 
the  present,  at  least  —  it  may  not  always  be  so  —  she  sails 
upon  a  summer  sea. 

It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the  main  object  which 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  set  before  themselves  has 


300    FOREIGN   OPINION   OF   THE   UNITED  STATES 

been  achieved.  When  Sieves  was  asked  what  he  had  done 
during  the  Reign  of  Terror,  he  answered,  "I  lived."  The 
Constitution  as  a  whole  has  stood  and  stands  unshaken. 
The  scales  of  power  have  continued  to  hang  fairly  even.  The 
President  has  not  corrupted  and  enslaved  Congress:  Con 
gress  has  not  paralyzed  and  cowed  the  President.  The  legis 
lative  may  have  sometimes  appeared  to  be  gaining  on  the 
executive  department;  but  there  are  also  times  when  the 
people  support  the  President  against  the  Legislature,  and 
when  the  Legislature  are  obliged  to  recognize  the  fact.  Were 
George  Washington  to  return  to  earth,  he  might  be  as  great 
and  useful  a  President  as  he  was  more  than  a  century  ago. 
Neither  the  Legislature  nor  the  Executive  has  for  a  moment 
threatened  the  liberties  of  the  people.  The  States  have  not 
broken  up  the  Union,  and  the  Union  has  not  absorbed  the 
States.  No  wonder  that  the  Americans  are  proud  of  an  in 
strument  under  which  this  great  result  has  been  attained, 
which  has  passed  unscathed  through  the  furnace  of  civil  war, 
which  has  been  found  capable  of  embracing  a  body  of  Com 
monwealths  more  than  three  times  as  numerous,  and  with 
twenty  fold  the  population  of  the  original  States,  which  has 
cultivated  the  political  intelligence  of  the  masses  to  a  point 
reached  in  no  other  country,  which  has  fostered  and  been 
found  compatible  with  a  larger  measure  of  local  self-govern 
ment  than  has  existed  elsewhere.  Nor  is  it  the  least  of  its 
merits  to  have  made  itself  beloved.  Objections  may  be 
taken  to  particular  features,  and  these  objections  point,  as 
most  American  thinkers  are  agreed,  to  practical  improve 
ments  which  would  preserve  the  excellences  and  remove  some 
of  the  inconveniences.  But  reverence  for  the  Constitution  has 
become  so  potent  a  conservative  influence,  that  no  proposal 
of  fundamental  change  seems  likely  to  be  entertained.  And 
this  reverence  is  itself  one  of  the  most  wholesome  and  hope 
ful  elements  in  the  character  of  the  American  people. 


CRITICISM   OF  THE   FEDERAL  SYSTEM ' 
JAMES  BRYCE 

ALL  Americans  have  long  been  agreed  that  the  only  possi 
ble  form  of  government  for  their  country  is  a  Federal  one. 
All  have  perceived  that  a  centralized  system  would  be  inex 
pedient,  if  not  unworkable,  over  so  large  an  area,  and  have 
still  more  strongly  felt  that  to  cut  up  the  continent  into  ab 
solutely  independent  States  would  not  only  involve  risks  of 
war  but  injure  commerce,  and  retard  in  a  thousand  ways  the 
material  development  of  every  part  of  the  country.  But  re 
garding  the  nature  of  the  Federal  tie  that  ought  to  exist 
there  have  been  keen  and  frequent  controversies,  dormant 
at  present,  but  which  might  break  out  afresh  should  there 
arise  a  new  question  of  social  or  economic  change  capable  of 
bringing  the  powers  of  Congress  into  collision  with  the  wishes 
of  any  State  or  group  of  States.  The  general  suitability  to 
the  country  of  a  Federal  system  is  therefore  accepted,  and 
need  not  be  discussed.  I  pass  to  consider  the  strong  and 
weak  points  of  that  which  exists. 

The  faults  generally  charged  on  federations  as  compared 
with  unified  governments  are  the  following :  — 

1 .  Weakness  in  the  conduct  of  foreign  affairs. 

2.  Weakness  in  home  government,  that  is  to  say,  deficient 

authority  over  the  component  States  and  the  indi 
vidual  citizens. 

3.  Liability  to  dissolution  by  the  secession  or  rebellion 

of  States. 

4.  Liability  to  division  into  groups  and  factions  by  the 

1  The  American  Commonivealth  (Revised  Edition),  part  i,  chapter  xxrx. 
Reprinted  through  the  generous  permission  of  The  Macmillan  Company. 


302    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

formation  of  separate  combinations  of  the  compo 
nent  States. 

5.  Want  of  uniformity  among  the  States  in  legislation 

and  administration. 

6.  Trouble,  expense,  and  delay  due  to  the  complexity  of  a 

double  system  of  legislation  and  administration. 

The  first  four  of  these  are  all  due  to  the  same  cause,  viz., 
the  existence  within  one  government,  which  ought  to  be  able 
to  speak  and  act  in  the  name  and  with  the  united  strength 
of  the  Nation,  of  distinct  centers  of  force,  organized  political 
bodies  into  which  part  of  the  Nation's  strength  has  flowed, 
and  whose  resistance  to  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  whole 
Nation  is  likely  to  be  more  effective  than  could  be  the  re 
sistance  of  individuals,  because  such  bodies  have  each  of 
them  a  government,  a  revenue,  a  militia,  a  local  patriotism 
to  unite  them,  whereas  individual  recalcitrants,  however 
numerous,  would  be  unorganized,  and  less  likely  to  find  a 
legal  standing  ground  for  opposition.  The  gravity  of  the 
first  two  of  the  four  alleged  faults  has  been  exaggerated  by 
most  writers,  who  have  assumed,  on  insufficient  grounds, 
that  Federal  Governments  are  necessarily  weak.  Let  us, 
however,  see  how  far  America  has  experienced  such  troubles 
from  these  features  of  a  Federal  system. 

I.  In  its  early  years,  the  Union  was  not  successful  in  the 
management  of  its  foreign  relations.  Few  popular  Govern 
ments  are,  because  a  successful  foreign  policy  needs  in  a 
world  such  as  ours  conditions  which  popular  Govern 
ments  seldom  enjoy.  In  the  days  of  Adams,  Jefferson,  and 
Madison,  the  Union  put  up  with  a  great  deal  of  ill-treatment 
from  France  as  well  as  from  England.  It  drifted  rather  than 
steered  into  the  War  of  1812.  The  conduct  of  that  war  was 
hampered  by  the  opposition  of  the  New  England  States. 
The  Mexican  War  of  1846  was  due  to  the  slaveholders;  but 
as  the  combination  among  the  Southern  leaders  which 


CRITICISM   OF   THE   FEDERAL  SYSTEM       303 

entrapped  the  Nation  into  that  conflict  might  have  been 
equally  successful  in  a  unified  country,  the  blame  need  not  be 
laid  at  the  door  of  Federalism.  The  principle  of  abstention 
from  Old  World  complications  has  been  so  heartily  and  con 
sistently  adhered  to  that  the  capacities  of  the  Federal  sys 
tem  for  the  conduct  of  foreign  affairs  have  been  seldom  seri 
ously  tried,  so  far  as  concerned  European  powers;  and  the 
likelihood  of  any  danger  from  abroad  is  so  slender  that  it  may 
be  practically  ignored.  But  when  a  question  of  external 
policy  arises  which  interests  only  one  part  of  the  Union 
(such  for  instance  as  the  immigration  of  Asiatic  laborers), 
the  existence  of  States  feeling  themselves  specially  affected 
is  apt  to  have  a  strong  and  probably  an  unfortunate  influ 
ence.  Only  in  this  way  can  the  American  Government  be 
deemed  likely  to  suffer  in  its  foreign  relations  from  its 
Federal  character. 

II.  For  the  purposes  of  domestic  government  the  Federal 
authority  is  now,  in  ordinary  times,  sufficiently  strong.  How 
ever,  as  was  remarked  in  the  last  chapter,  there  have  been  oc 
casions  when  the  resistance  of  even  a  single  State  disclosed 
its  weakness.  Had  a  man  less  vigorous  than  Jackson  occu 
pied  the  Presidential  chair  in  1832,  South  Carolina  would 
probably  have  prevailed  against  the  Union.  In  the  Kansas 
troubles  of  1855-56  the  National  Executive  played  a  sorry 
part;  and  even  in  the  resolute  hands  of  President  Grant  it 
was  hampered  in  the  reestablishment  of  order  in  the  recon 
quered  Southern  States  by  the  rights  which  the  Federal  Con 
stitution  secured  to  those  States.  The  only  general  conclu 
sion  on  this  point  which  can  be  drawn  from  history  is  that 
while  the  Central  Government  is  likely  to  find  less  and  less 
difficulty  in  enforcing  its  will  against  a  State  or  disobedient 
subjects,  because  the  prestige  of  its  success  in  the  Civil  War 
has  strengthened  it  and  the  facilities  of  communication 
make  the  raising  and  moving  of  troops  more  easy,  neverthe- 


304    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

less  recalcitrant  States,  or  groups  of  States,  still  enjoy  cer 
tain  advantages  for  resistance,  advantages  due  partly  to  the 
legal  position,  partly  to  their  local  sentiment,  which  rebels 
might  not  have  in  unified  countries  like  England,  France, 
or  Italy. 

III.  Everybody  knows  that  it  was  the  Federal  system, 
and  the  doctrine  of  State  sovereignty  grounded  thereon, 
and  not  expressly  excluded,  though  certainly  not  recognized, 
by  the  Constitution,  which  led  to  the  secession  of  1861,  and 
gave  European  powers  a  plausible  ground  for  recognizing 
the  insurgent  minority  as  belligerents.   Nothing  seems  now 
less  probable  than  another  secession,  not  merely  because  the 
supposed  legal  basis  for  it  has  been  abandoned,  and  because 
the  advantages  of  continued  union  are  more  obvious  than 
ever  before,  but  because  the  precedent  of  the  victory  won  by 
the  North  will  discourage  like  attempts  in  the  future.   This 
is  so  strongly  felt  that  it  has  not  even  been  thought  worth 
while  to  add  to  the  Constitution  an  amendment  negativing 
the  right  to  secede.    The  doctrine  of  the  legal  indestructi 
bility  of  the  Union  is  now  well  established.  To  establish  it, 
however,  cost  thousands  of  millions  of  dollars  and  the  lives 
of  a  million  of  men. 

IV.  The  combination  of  States  into  groups  was  a  famil 
iar  feature  of  politics  before  the  war.    South  Carolina  and 
the  Gulf  States  constituted  one  such,  and  the  most  energetic, 
group;  the  New  England  States  frequently  acted  as  another, 
especially  during  the  War  of  1812.  At  present,  though  there 
are  several  sets  of  States  whose  common  interests  lead  their 
representatives  in  Congress  to  act  together,  it  is  no  longer 
the  fashion  for  States  to  combine  in  an  official  way  through 
their  State  organizations,  and  their  doing  so  would  excite 
reprehension.   It  is  easier,  safer,  and  more  effective  to  act 
through  the  great  National  parties.  Any  considerable  State 
interest  (such  as  that  of  the  silver-miners  or  cattle-men,  or 


CRITICISM   OF   THE   FEDERAL   SYSTEM       305 

Protectionist  manufacturers)  can  generally  compel  a  party 
to  conciliate  it  by  threatening  to  forsake  the  party  if  neg 
lected.  Political  action  runs  less  in  State  channels  than  it 
did  formerly,  and  the  only  really  threatening  form  which 
the  combined  action  of  States  could  take,  that  of  using 
for  a  common  disloyal  purpose  State  revenues  and  the  ma 
chinery  of  State  Governments,  has  become,  since  the  failure 
of  secession,  most  improbable. 

It  has  been  a  singular  piece  of  good  fortune  that  lines  of 
religious  difference  have  never  happened  to  coincide  with 
State  lines ;  nor  has  any  particular  creed  ever  dominated  any 
group  of  States.  The  religious  forces  which  in  some  coun 
tries  and  times  have  given  rise  to  grave  civil  discord,  have  in 
America  never  weakened  the  Federal  fabric. 

V.  Towards  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century  two  signifi 
cant  phenomena  began  to  be  seen.  One  was  the  increasing 
power  of  incorporated  companies  and  combinations  of  capi 
talists.  It  began  to  be  felt  that  there  ought  to  be  a  power  of 
regulating  corporations,  and  that  such  regulation  cannot  be 
effective  unless  it  proceeds  from  Federal  authority  and  ap 
plies  all  over  the  Union.  At  present  the  power  of  Congress 
is  deemed  to  be  limited  to  the  operations  of  inter-State  com 
merce,  so  that  the  rest  of  the  work  done  by  corporations, 
with  the  law  governing  their  creation  and  management, 
belongs  to  the  several  States.  The  other  phenomenon  was 
the  growing  demand  for  various  social  reforms,  some  of 
which  (such  as  the  regulation  of  child  labor)  are  deemed  to 
be  neglected  by  the  more  backward  States,  while  others  can 
not  be  fully  carried  out  except  by  laws  of  general  applica 
tion.  The  difficulty  of  meeting  this  demand  under  existing 
conditions  has  led  to  many  complaints,  and  while  some  call 
for  the  amendment  of  the  Constitution,  others  have  gone  so 
far  as  to  suggest  that  the  courts  ought  now  to  construe  the 
Constitution  as  conferring  powers  it  has  not  hitherto  been 
deemed  to  include. 


306    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

VI.  The  want  of  uniformity  in  private  law  and  methods  of 
administration  is  an  evil  which  different  minds  will  judge  by 
different  standards.  Some  may  think  it  a  positive  benefit  to 
secure  a  variety  which  is  interesting  in  itself  and  makes  pos 
sible  the  trying  of  experiments  from  which  the  whole  coun 
try  may  profit.  Is  variety  within  a  country  more  a  gain  or  a 
loss?  Diversity  in  coinage,  in  weights  and  measures,  in  the 
rules  regarding  bills  and  checques  and  banking  and  com 
merce  generally  is  obviously  inconvenient.  Diversity  in 
dress,  in  food,  in  the  habits  and  usages  of  society,  is  almost 
as  obviously  a  thing  to  rejoice  over,  because  it  diminishes 
the  terrible  monotony  of  life.  Diversity  in  religious  opinion 
and  worship  excited  horror  in  the  Middle  Ages,  but  now 
passes  unnoticed,  except  where  Governments  are  intolerant. 
In  the  United  States  the  possible  diversity  of  laws  is  im 
mense.  Subject  to  a  few  prohibitions  contained  in  the  Con 
stitution,  each  State  can  play  whatever  tricks  it  pleases  with 
the  law  of  family  relations,  of  inheritance,  of  contracts,  of 
torts,  of  crimes.  But  the  actual  diversity  is  not  great,  for  all 
the  States,  save  Louisiana,  have  taken  the  English  common 
and  statute  law  of  1776  as  their  point  of  departure,  and  have 
adhered  to  its  main  principles.  A  more  complete  uniformity 
as  regards  marriage  and  divorce  is  desirable,  for  it  is  partic 
ularly  awkward  not  to  know  whether  you  are  married  or 
not,  nor  whether  you  have  been  or  can  be  divorced  or  not; 
and  several  States  have  tried  bold  experiments  on  divorce 
laws.  But,  on  the  whole,  far  less  inconvenience  than  could 
have  been  expected  seems  to  be  caused  by  the  varying  laws 
of  different  States,  partly  because  commercial  law  is  the  de 
partment  in  which  the  diversity  is  smallest,  partly  because 
American  practitioners  and  judges  have  become  expert  in 
applying  the  rules  for  determining  which  law,  where  those 
of  different  States  are  in  question,  ought  to  be  deemed  to 
govern  a  given  case.  However,  some  States  have  taken  steps 


CRITICISM   OF   THE   FEDERAL   SYSTEM        307 

to  reduce  this  diversity  by  appointing  Commissions,  in 
structed  to  meet  and  confer  as  to  the  best  means  of  securing 
uniform  State  legislation  on  some  important  subjects,  and 
progress  in  this  direction  has  been  made. 

He  who  is  conducted  over  an  iron-clad  warship,  and  sees 
the  infinite  intricacy  of  the  machinery  and  mechanical  ap 
pliances  which  it  contains  and  by  which  its  engines,  its  guns, 
its  turrets,  its  torpedoes,  its  apparatus  for  anchoring  and 
making  sail,  are  worked,  is  apt  to  think  that  it  must  break 
down  in  the  rough  practice  of  war.  He  is  told,  however,  that 
the  more  is  done  by  machinery,  the  more  safely  and  easily 
does  everything  go  on,  because  the  machinery  can  be  relied 
on  to  work  accurately,  and  the  performance  by  it  of  the 
heavier  work  leaves  the  crew  free  to  attend  to  the  general 
management  of  the  vessel  and  her  armament.  So  in  study 
ing  the  elaborate  devices  with  which  the  Federal  system  of 
the  United  States  has  been  equipped,  one  fancies  that  with 
so  many  authorities  and  bodies  whose  functions  are  intri 
cately  interlaced,  and  some  of  which  may  collide  with  others, 
there  must  be  a  great  risk  of  break-downs  and  deadlocks, 
not  to  speak  of  an  expense  much  exceeding  that  which  is 
incident  to  a  simple  centralized  government.  In  America, 
however,  smoothness  of  working  is  secured  by  elaboration 
of  device;  and  complex  as  the  mechanism  of  the  government 
may  appear,  the  citizens  have  grown  so  familiar  with  it  that 
its  play  is  smooth  and  easy,  attended  with  less  trouble,  and 
certainly  with  less  suspicion  on  the  part  of  the  people,  than 
would  belong  to  a  scheme  which  vested  all  powers  in  one 
administration  and  one  legislature.  The  expense  is  admitted, 
but  is  considered  no  grave  defect  when  compared  with  the 
waste  which  arises  from  untrustworthy  officials  and  legisla 
tors  whose  depredations  would,  it  is  thought,  be  greater  were 
their  sphere  of  action  wider,  and  the  checks  upon  them 
fewer.  He  who  examines  a  system  of  government  from  with- 


308    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

out  is  generally  disposed  to  overrate  the  difficulties  in  work 
ing  which  its  complexity  causes.  Few  things,  for  instance, 
are  harder  than  to  explain  to  a  person  who  has  not  been  a 
student  in  one  of  the  two  ancient  English  universities  the 
nature  of  their  highly  complex  constitution  and  the  relation 
of  the  college  to  the  university.  If  he  does  apprehend  it  he 
pronounces  it  too  intricate  for  the  purposes  it  has  to  serve. 
To  those  who  have  grown  up  under  it,  nothing  is  simpler 
and  more  obvious. 

There  is  a  blemish  characteristic  of  the  American  federa 
tion  which  Americans  seldom  notice  because  it  seems  to 
them  unavoidable.  This  is  the  practice,  in  selecting  candi 
dates  for  Federal  office,  of  regarding  not  so  much  the  merits 
of  the  candidate  as  the  effect  which  his  nomination  will  have 
upon  the  vote  of  the  State  to  which  he  belongs.  Second-rate 
men  are  run  for  first-rate  posts,  not  because  the  party  which 
runs  them  overrates  their  capacity,  but  because  it  expects 
to  carry  their  State  either  by  their  local  influence  or  through 
the  pleasure  which  the  State  feels  in  the  prospect  of  seeing 
one  of  its  own  citizens  in  high  office.  This  of  course  works  in 
favor  of  the  politicians  who  come  from  a  large  State.  No 
doubt  the  leading  men  of  a  large  State  are  prima  facie  more 
likely  to  be  men  of  high  ability  than  those  of  a  small  State, 
because  the  field  of  choice  is  wider  and  the  competition 
keener.  One  is  reminded  of  the  story  of  the  leading  citizen 
in  the  isle  of  Seriphus  who  observed  to  Themistocles,  "  You 
would  not  have  been  famous  had  you  been  born  in  Seriphus," 
to  which  Themistocles  replied,  "Neither  would  you  had  you 
been  born  in  Athens."  The  two  great  States  of  Virginia  and 
Massachusetts  reared  one-half  of  the  men  who  won  distinc 
tion  in  the  first  fifty  years  of  the  history  of  the  Republic. 
Nevertheless  it  often  happens  that  a  small  State  produces  a 
first-rate  man,  whom  the  country  ought  to  have  in  one  of  its 
highest  places,  but  who  is  passed  over  because  the  Federal 


CRITICISM   OF  THE   FEDERAL  SYSTEM       30<) 

system  gives  great  weight  to  the  voice  of  a  State,  and  be 
cause  State  sentiment  is  so  strong  that  the  voters  of  a  State 
which  has  a  large  and  perhaps  a  doubtful  vote  to  cast  in  na 
tional  elections,  prefer  an  inferior  man  in  whom  they  are 
directly  interested  to  a  superior  one  who  is  a  stranger.  It  is 
also  unfortunate  that  the  President's  liberty  of  choice  in 
forming  his  Cabinet  should  be  restricted  by  the  doctrine 
that  he  must  not  have  in  it,  if  possible,  two  persons  from  the 
same  State. 

I  have  left  to  the  last  the  gravest  reproach  which  Euro 
peans  have  been  wont  to  bring  against  Federalism  in  Amer 
ica.  They  attributed  to  it  the  origin,  or  at  least  the  virulence, 
of  the  great  struggle  over  slavery  which  tried  the  Constitu 
tion  so  severely.  That  struggle  created  parties  which,  though 
they  had  adherents  everywhere,  no  doubt  tended  more  and 
more  to  become  identified  with  States,  controlling  the  State 
organizations  and  bending  the  State  Governments  to  their 
service.  It  gave  tremendous  importance  to  legal  questions 
arising  out  of  the  differences  between  the  law  of  the  Slave 
States  and  the  Free  States,  questions  which  the  Constitu 
tion  had  either  evaded  or  not  foreseen.  It  shook  the  credit  of 
the  Supreme  Court  by  making  the  judicial  decision  of  those 
questions  appear  due  to  partiality  to  the  Slave  States.  It 
disposed  the  extreme  men  on  both  sides  to  hate  the  Federal 
Union  which  bound  them  in  the  same  body  with  their  an 
tagonists.  It  laid  hold  of  the  doctrine  of  State  rights  and 
State  sovereignty  as  entitling  a  Commonwealth  which 
deemed  itself  aggrieved  to  shake  off  allegiance  to  the  Na 
tional  Government.  Thus  at  last  it  brought  about  secession 
and  the  great  Civil  War.  Even  when  the  war  was  over,  the 
dregs  of  the  poison  continued  to  haunt  and  vex  the  system 
and  bred  fresh  disorders  in  it.  The  constitutional  duty  of 
reestablishing  the  State  Governments  of  the  conquered 
States  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  practical 


310    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

danger  of  doing  so  while  their  people  remained  disaffected, 
produced  the  Military  Governments,  the  "Carpet-bag" 
Governments,  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  outrages,  the  gift  of  suf 
frage  to  a  negro  population  unfit  for  such  a  privilege,  yet  ap 
parently  capable  of  being  protected  in  no  other  way.  All 
these  mischiefs,  it  has  often  been  argued,  are  the  results  of 
the  Federal  structure  of  the  Government,  which  carried  in 
its  bosom  the  seeds  of  its  own  destruction,  seeds  sure  to 
ripen  so  soon  as  there  arose  a  question  that  stirred  men 
deeply. 

It  may  be  answered  not  merely  that  the  National  Govern 
ment  has  survived  this  struggle  and  emerged  from  it 
stronger  than  before,  but  also  that  Federalism  did  not  pro 
duce  the  struggle,  but  only  gave  to  it  the  particular  form  of  a 
series  of  legal  controversies  over  the  Federal  pact  followed 
by  a  war  of  States  against  the  Union.  Where  such  vast  eco 
nomic  interests  were  involved,  and  such  hot  passions  roused, 
there  must  anyhow  have  been  a  conflict,  and  it  may  well  be 
that  a  conflict  raging  within  the  vitals  of  a  centralized  gov 
ernment  would  have  proved  no  less  terrible  and  would  have 
left  as  many  noxious  sequelae  behind. 

In  blaming  either  the  conduct  of  a  person  or  the  plan  and 
scheme  of  a  government  for  evils  which  have  actually  fol 
lowed,  men  are  apt  to  overlook  those  other  evils,  perhaps  as 
great,  which  might  have  flowed  from  different  conduct  or 
some  other  plan.  All  that  can  fairly  be  concluded  from  the 
history  of  the  American  Union  is  that  Federalism  is  obliged 
by  the  law  of  its  nature  to  leave  in  the  hands  of  States 
powers  whose  exercise  may  give  to  political  controversy  a 
peculiarly  dangerous  form,  may  impede  the  assertion  of 
National  authority,  may  even,  when  long-continued  exas 
peration  has  suspended  or  destroyed  the  feeling  of  a  common 
patriotism,  threaten  National  unity  itself.  Against  this 
danger  is  to  be  set  the  fact  that  the  looser  structure  of  a 


CRITICISM   OF   THE   FEDERAL   SYSTEM        311 

Federal  Government  and  the  scope  it  gives  for  diversities  of 
legislation  in  different  parts  of  a  country  may  avert  sources 
of  discord,  or  prevent  local  discord  from  growing  into  a  con 
test  of  national  magnitude. 


MERITS  OF  THE  FEDERAL  SYSTEM1 
JAMES  BRYCE 

I  DO  not  propose  to  discuss  in  this  chapter  the  advantages 
of  Federalism  in  general,  for  to  do  this  we  should  have  to 
wander  off  to  other  times  and  countries,  to  talk  of  Achaia 
and  the  Hanseatic  League  and  the  Swiss  Confederation.  I 
shall  comment  on  those  merits  only  which  experience  of  the 
American  Union  illustrates. 

There  are  two  distinct  lines  of  argument  by  which  their 
Federal  system  was  recommended  to  the  framers  of  the  Con 
stitution,  and  upon  which  it  is  still  held  forth  for  imitation 
to  other  countries.  These  lines  have  been  so  generally  con 
founded  that  it  is  well  to  present  them  in  a  precise  form. 

The  first  set  of  arguments  point  to  Federalism  proper,  and 
are  the  following:  — 

1.  That  Federalism  furnishes  the  means  of  uniting  com 
monwealths  into  one  nation  under  one  National 
Government  without  extinguishing  their  separate 
administrations,  legislatures,  and  local  patriotisms. 
As  the  Americans  of  1787  would  probably  have  pre 
ferred  complete  State  independence  to  the  fusion  of 
their  States  into  a  unified  government,  Federalism 
was  the  only  resource.  So  when  the  new  Germanic 
Empire,  which  is  really  a  Federation,  was  estab 
lished  in  1871,  Bavaria  and  Wiirtemberg  could  not 
have  been  brought  under  a  national  government 
save  by  a  Federal  scheme.  Similar  suggestions,  as 
every  one  knows,  have  been  made  for  re-setting  the 

1  The  American  Commonwealth  (Revised  Edition),  part  i,  chapter  xxx. 
Reprinted  through  the  generous  permission  of  The  Macmillan  Company. 


MERITS  OF  THE  FEDERAL  SYSTEM  313 

relations  of  Ireland  to  Great  Britain,  and  of  the  self- 
governing  British  colonies  to  the  United  Kingdom. 
There  are  causes  and  conditions  which  dispose  inde 
pendent  or  semi-independent  communities,  or  peo 
ples  living  under  loosely  compacted  governments,  to 
form  a  closer  union  in  a  Federal -form.  There  are 
other  causes  and  conditions  which  dispose  the  sub 
jects  of  one  government,  or  sections  of  these  sub 
jects,  to  desire  to  make  their  governmental  union 
less  close  by  substituting  a  Federal  for  a  unitary  sys 
tem.  In  both  sets  of  cases,  the  centripetal  or  cen 
trifugal  forces  spring  from  the  local  position,  the  his 
tory,  the  sentiments,  the  economic  needs  of  those 
among  whom  the  problem  arises;  and  that  which  is 
good  for  one  people  or  political  body  is  not  neces 
sarily  good  for  another.  Federalism  is  an  equally 
legitimate  resource  whether  it  is  adopted  for  the 
sake  of  tightening  or  for  the  sake  of  loosening  a  pre 
existing  bond. 

2.  That  Federalism  supplies  the  best  means  of  developing 
a  new  and  vast  country.  It  permits  an  expansion 
whose  extent,  and  whose  rate  and  manner  of  prog 
ress,  cannot  be  foreseen  to  proceed  with  more  vari 
ety  of  methods,  more  adaptation  of  laws  and  admin 
istration  to  the  circumstances  of  each  part  of  the 
territory,  and  altogether  in  a  more  truly  natural  and 
spontaneous  way,  than  can  be  expected  under  a  cen 
tralized  government,  which  is  disposed  to  apply  its 
settled  system  through  all  its  dominions.  Thus  the 
special  needs  of  a  new  region  are  met  by  the  inhab 
itants  in  the  way  they  find  best:  its  laws  can  be 
adapted  to  the  economic  conditions  which  from  time 
to  time  present  themselves:  its  special  evils  can  be 
cured  by  special  remedies,  perhaps  more  drastic  than 


314    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

an  old  country  demands,  perhaps  more  lax  than  an 
old  country  would  tolerate;  while  at  the  same  time 
the  spirit  of  self-reliance  among  those  who  build  up 
these  new  communities  is  stimulated  and  respected. 

3.  That  Federalism  prevents  the  rise  of  a  despotic  cen 

tral  government,  absorbing  other  powers,  and  men 
acing  the  private  liberties  of  the  citizen.  This  may 
now  seem  to  have  been  an  idle  fear,  so  far  as  Amer 
ica  was  concerned.  It  was,  however,  a  very  real 
fear  among  the  ancestors  of  the  present  Ameri 
cans,  and  nearly  led  to  the  rejection  even  of  so 
undespotic  an  instrument  as  the  Federal  Consti 
tution  of  1789.  Congress  (or  the  President,  as  the 
case  may  be)  is  still  sometimes  described  as  a  ty 
rant  by  the  party  which  does  not  control  it,  simply 
because  it  is  a  central  government:  and  the  States 
are  represented  as  bulwarks  against  its  encroach 
ments. 
The  second  set  of  arguments  relate  to  and  recommend  not 

so  much  Federalism  as  local  self-government.  I  state  them 

briefly  because  they  are  familiar :  — 

4.  Self-government  stimulates  the  interest  of  people  in 

the  affairs  of  their  neighborhood,  sustains  local  po 
litical  life,  educates  the  citizen  in  his  daily  round  of 
civic  duty,  teaches  him  that  perpetual  vigilance  and 
the  sacrifice  of  his  own  time  and  labor  are  the  price 
that  must  be  paid  for  individual  liberty  and  collec 
tive  prosperity. 

5.  Self-government  secures  the  good  administration  of 

local  affairs  by  giving  the  inhabitants  of  each  locality 
due  means  of  overseeing  the  conduct  of  their  busi 
ness. 

That  these  two  sets  of  grounds  are  distinct  appears  from 
the  fact  that  the  sort  of  local  interest  which  local  self-gov- 


MERITS  OF  THE  FEDERAL  SYSTEM  315 

eminent  evokes  is  quite  a  different  thing  from  the  interest 
men  feel  in  the  affairs  of  a  large  body  like  an  American 
State.  So,  too,  the  control  over  its  own  affairs  of  a  township, 
or  even  a  small  county,  where  everybody  can  know  what  is 
going  on,  is  quite  different  from  the  control  exercisable  over 
the  affairs  of  a  commonwealth  with  a  million  of  people. 
Local  self-government  may  exist  in  a  unified  country  like 
England,  and  may  be  wanting  in  a  Federal  country  like 
Germany.  And  even  in  the  United  States,  while  some 
States,  as  in  New  England,  possessed  an  admirably  complete 
system  of  local  government,  others,  such  as  Virginia,  the 
old  champion  of  State  sovereignty,  were  imperfectly  pro 
vided  with  it.  Nevertheless,  through  both  sets  of  argu 
ments  there  runs  the  general  principle,  applicable  in  every 
part  and  branch  of  government,  that,  where  other  things 
are  equal,  the  more  power  is  given  to  the  units  which  com 
pose  the  Nation,  be  they  large  or  small,  and  the  less  to  the 
Nation  as  a  whole  and  to  its  central  authority,  so  much  the 
fuller  will  be  the  liberties  and  so  much  greater  the  energy  of 
the  individuals  who  compose  the  people.  This  principle, 
though  it  had  not  been  then  formulated  in  the  way  men 
formulate  it  now,  was  heartily  embraced  by  the  Americans. 
Perhaps  it  was  because  they  agreed  in  taking  it  as  an  axiom 
that  they  seldom  referred  to  it  in  the  subsequent  contro 
versies  proceeded  on  the  basis  of  the  Constitution  as  a  law 
rather  than  on  considerations  of  general  political  theory. 
A  European  reader  of  the  history  of  the  first  seventy  years 
of  the  United  States  is  surprised  how  little  is  said,  through 
the  interminable  discussions  regarding  the  relation  of  the 
Federal  government  to  the  States,  on  the  respective  ad 
vantages  of  centralization  or  localization  of  powers  as  a 
matter  of  historical  experience  and  general  expediency. 

Three  further  benefits  to  be  expected  from  a  Federal  sys 
tem  may  be  mentioned,  benefits  which  seem  to  have  been 


316    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

unnoticed  or  little  regarded  by  those  who  established  it  in 
America :  — 

6.  Federalism  enables  a  people  to  try  experiments  in  legis 

lation  and  administration  which  could  not  be  safely 
tried  in  a  large  centralized  country.  A  comparatively 
small  commonwealth  like  an  American  State  easily 
makes  and  unmakes  its  laws;  mistakes  are  not  se 
rious,  for  they  are  soon  corrected;  other  States  profit 
by  the  experience  of  a  law  or  a  method  which  has 
worked  well  or  ill  in  the  State  that  has  tried  it. 

7.  Federalism,  if  it  diminishes  the  collective  force  of  a 

nation,  diminishes  also  the  risks  to  which  its  size  and 
the  diversities  of  its  parts  expose  it.  A  nation  so  di 
vided  is  like  a  ship  built  with  water-tight  compart 
ments.  When  a  leak  is  sprung  in  one  compartment, 
the  cargo  stowed  there  may  be  damaged,  but  the 
other  compartments  remain  dry  and  keep  the  ship 
afloat.  So,  if  social  discord  or  an  economic  crisis  has 
produced  disorders  or  foolish  legislation  in  one  mem 
ber  of  the  Federal  body,  the  mischief  may  stop  at 
the  State  frontier  instead  of  spreading  through  and 
tainting  the  Nation  at  large. 

8.  Federalism,  by  creating  many  local  legislatures  with 

wide  powers,  relieves  the  National  Legislature  of  a 
part  of  that  large  mass  of  functions  which  might 
otherwise  prove  too  heavy  for  it.  Thus  business  is 
more  promptly  despatched,  and  the  great  central 
council  of  the  Nation  has  time  to  deliberate  on  those 
questions  which  most  nearly  touch  the  whole  coun 
try. 
All  of  these  arguments  recommending  Federalism  have 

proved  valid  in  American  experience. 

To  create  a  Nation  while  preserving  the  States  was  the 

main  reason  for  the  grant  of  powers  which  the  National 


MERITS  OF  THE  FEDERAL  SYSTEM  317 

Government  received;  an  all-sufficient  reason,  and  one  which 
holds  good  to-day.  The  several  States  have  changed  greatly 
since  1789,  but  they  are  still  commonwealths  whose  wide  au 
thority  and  jurisdiction  practical  men  are  agreed  in  desiring 
to  maintain. 

Not  much  was  said  in  the  Convention  of  1787  regarding 
the  best  methods  of  extending  government  over  the  un 
settled  territories  lying  beyond  the  Alleghany  Mountains. 
It  was,  however,  assumed  that  they  would  develop  as  the 
older  colonies  had  developed,  and  in  point  of  fact  each  dis 
trict,  when  it  became  sufficiently  populous,  was  formed 
into  a  self-governing  State,  the  less  populous  divisions  still 
remaining  in  the  status  of  semi-self-governing  Territories. 
Although  many  blunders  have  been  committed  in  the  pro 
cess  of  development,  especially  in  the  reckless  contraction 
of  debt  and  the  wasteful  disposal  of  the  public  lands,  greater 
evils  might  have  resulted  had  the  creation  of  local  institu 
tions  and  the  control  of  new  communities  been  left  to  the 
Central  Government.  Congress  would  have  been  not  less  im 
provident  than  the  State  Governments,  for  it  would  have 
been  even  less  irresistible,  the  growth  of  order  and  civiliza 
tion  probably  slower.  It  deserves  to  be  noticed  that,  in 
granting  self-government  to  all  those  of  her  colonies  whose 
population  is  of  English  race,  England  has  practically 
adopted  the  same  plan  as  the  United  States  have  done  with 
their  western  territory.  The  results  have  been  generally 
satisfactory,  although  England,  like  America,  has  found  that 
her  colonists  have  in  some  regions  been  disposed  to  treat  the 
aboriginal  inhabitants,  whose  lands  they  covet  and  whose 
persons  they  hate,  with  a  harshness  and  injustice  which  the 
mother  country  would  gladly  check. 

The  argument  which  set  forth  the  advantages  of  local 
self-government  were  far  more  applicable  to  the  States  of 
1787  than  to  those  of  1907.  Virginia,  then  the  largest  State, 


318    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

had  only  half  a  million  free  inhabitants,  less  than  the  pres 
ent  population  of  Baltimore.  Massachusetts  had  450,000, 
Pennsylvania  400,000,  New  York  300,000;  while  Georgia, 
Rhode  Island,  and  Delaware  had  (even  counting  slaves) 
less  than  200,000  between  them.  These  were  communities 
to  which  the  expression  "local  self  -government "  might  be 
applied,  for,  although  the  population  was  scattered,  the 
numbers  were  small  enough  for  the  citizens  to  have  a  per 
sonal  knowledge  of  their  leading  men,  and  a  personal  inter 
est  (especially  as  a  large  proportion  were  land-owners)  in  the 
economy  and  prudence  with  which  common  affairs  were 
managed.  Now,  however,  when  of  the  nearly  fifty  States 
twenty-nine  have  more  than  a  million  inhabitants,  and  six 
have  more  than  three  millions,  the  newer  States,  being, 
moreover,  larger  in  area  than  most  of  the  older  ones,  the 
stake  of  each  citizen  is  relatively  smaller,  and  generally  too 
small  to  sustain  his  activity  in  politics,  and  the  party  chiefs 
of  the  State  are  known  to  him  only  by  the  newspapers  or  by 
their  occasional  visits  on  a  stumping  tour. 

All  that  can  be  claimed  for  the  Federal  system  under  this 
head  of  the  argument  is  that  it  provides  the  machinery  for  a 
better  control  of  the  taxes  raised  and  expended  in  a  given 
region  of  the  country,  and  a  better  oversight  of  the  public 
works  undertaken  there  than  would  be  possible  were  every 
thing  left  to  the  Central  Government.  As  regards  the  educa 
tive  effect  of  numerous  and  frequent  elections,  it  will  be 
shown  in  a  later  chapter  that  elections  in  America  are  too 
many  and  come  too  frequently.  Overtaxing  the  attention  of 
the  citizen  and  frittering  away  his  interest,  they  leave  him 
at  the  mercy  of  knots  of  selfish  adventurers. 

The  utility  of  the  State  system  in  localizing  disorders  or 
discontents,  and  the  opportunities  it  affords  for  trying  easily 
and  safely  experiments  which  ought  to  be  tried  in  legislation 
and  administration,  constitute  benefits  to  be  set  off  against 


MERITS  OF  THE  FEDERAL  SYSTEM  319 

the  risk,  referred  to  in  the  last  preceding  chapters,  that  evils 
may  continue  in  a  district,  may  work  injustice  to  a  minority 
and  invite  imitation  by  other  States,  which  the  wholesome 
stringency  of  the  Central  Government  might  have  sup 
pressed. 

A  more  unqualified  approval  may  be  given  to  the  division 
of  legislative  powers.  The  existence  of  the  State  Legisla 
tures  relieves  Congress  of  a  burden  too  heavy  for  its  shoul 
ders  ;  for  although  it  has  far  less  foreign  policy  to  discuss  than 
the  Parliaments  of  England,  France,  or  Italy,  and  although 
the  separation  of  the  executive  from  the  legislative  depart 
ment  gives  it  less  responsibility  for  the  ordinary  conduct  of 
the  Administration  than  devolves  on  those  chambers,  it 
could  not  possibly,  were  its  competence  as  large  as  theirs, 
deal  with  the  multiform  and  increasing  demands  of  the  dif 
ferent  parts  of  the  Union.  There  is  great  diversity  in  the 
material  conditions  of  different  parts  of  the  country,  and  at 
present  the  people,  particularly  in  the  West,  are  eager  to 
have  their  difficulties  handled,  their  economic  and  social 
needs  satisfied,  by  the  State  and  the  law.  It  would  be  ex 
tremely  difficult  for  any  central  legislature  to  pass  measures 
suited  to  these  dissimilar  and  varying  conditions.  How  little 
Congress  could  satisfy  them  appears  by  the  very  imperfect 
success  with  which  it  cultivates  the  field  of  legislation  to 
which  it  is  now  limited. 

These  merits  of  Federal  system  of  government  which  I 
have  enumerated  are  the  counterpart  and  consequences  of 
that  limitation  of  the  central  authority  whose  dangers  were 
indicated  in  the  last  chapter.  They  are,  if  one  may  reverse 
the  French  phrase,  the  qualities  of  Federalism's  defects. 
The  problem  which  all  federalized  nations  have  to  solve  is 
how  to  secure  an  efficient  central  government  and  preserve 
National  unity,  while  allowing  free  scope  for  the  diversities, 
and  free  play  to  the  authorities,  of  the  members  of  the  feder- 


320    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

ation.  It  is,  to  adopt  that  favorite  astronomical  metaphor 
which  no  American  panegyrist  of  the  Constitution  omits,  to 
keep  the  centrifugal  and  centripetal  forces  in  equilibrium, 
so  that  neither  the  planet  States  shall  fly  off  into  space, 
nor  the  sun  of  the  Central  Government  draw  them  into  its 
consuming  fires.  The  characteristic  merit  of  the  American 
Constitution  lies  in  the  method  by  which  it  has  solved  this 
problem.  It  has  given  the  National  Government  a  direct 
authority  over  all  citizens,  irrespective  of  the  State  Gov 
ernments,  and  has  therefore  been  able  safely  to  leave  wide 
powers  in  the  hands  of  those  Governments.  And  by  placing 
the  Constitution  above  both  the  National  and  the  State 
Governments,  it  has  referred  the  arbitrament  of  disputes 
between  them  to  an  independent  body,  charged  with  the 
interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  a  body  which  is  to  be 
deemed  not  so  much  a  third  authority  in  the  Government  as 
the  living  voice  of  the  Constitution,  the  unf  older  of  the  mind 
of  the  people  whose  will  stands  expressed  in  that  supreme  in 
strument. 

The  application  of  these  two  principles,  unknown  to,  or  at 
any  rate  little  used  by,  any  previous  federation,  has  contrib 
uted  more  than  any  thing  else  to  the  stability  of  the  Amer 
ican  system,  and  to  the  reverence  which  its  citizens  feel  for 
it,  a  reverence  which  is  the  best  security  for  its  permanence. 
Yet  even  these  devices  would  not  have  succeeded  but  for  the 
presence  of  a  mass  of  moral  and  material  influences,  stronger 
than  any  political  devices,  which  have  maintained  the  equi 
librium  of  centrifugal  and  centripetal  forces.  On  the  one 
hand,  there  has  been  the  love  of  local  independence  and  self- 
government;  on  the  other,  the  sense  of  community  in  blood, 
in  language,  in  habits  and  ideas,  a  common  pride  in  the 
National  history  and  the  National  flag. 

Quid  leges  sine  moribus  ?  The  student  of  institutions,  as 
well  as  the  lawyer,  is  apt  to  overrate  the  effect  of  mechanical 


MERITS  OF  THE  FEDERAL  SYSTEM  321 

contrivances  in  politics.  I  admit  that  in  America  they  have 
had  one  excellent  result;  they  have  formed  a  legal  habit  in 
the  mind  of  the  Nation.  But  the  true  value  of  a  political 
contrivance  resides  not  in  its  ingenuity,  but  in  its  adaptation 
to  the  temper  and  circumstances  of  the  people  for  whom  it  is 
designed,  in  its  power  of  using,  fostering  and  giving  a  legal 
form  to  those  forces  of  sentiment  and  interest  which  it  finds 
in  being.  So  it  has  been  with  the  American  system.  Just 
as  the  passions  which  the  question  of  slavery  evoked  strained 
the  Federal  fabric,  disclosing  unforeseen  weaknesses,  so  the 
love  of  the  Union,  the  sense  of  the  material  and  social  bene 
fits  involved  »in  its  preservation,  appeared  in  unexpected 
strength,  and  manned  with  zealous  defenders  the  ramparts 
of  the  sovereign  Constitution.  It  is  this  need  of  determin 
ing  the  suitability  of  the  machinery  for  the  workmen  and  its 
probable  influence  upon  them,  as  well  as  the  capacity  of  the 
workmen  for  using  and  their  willingness  to  use  the  machinery, 
which  makes  it  so  difficult  to  predict  the  operation  of  a  po 
litical  contrivance,  or,  when  it  has  succeeded  in  one  country, 
to  advise  its  imitation  in  another.  The  growing  strength  of 
the  National  Government  in  the  United  States  is  largely  due 
to  sentimental  forces  that  were  weak  a  century  ago,  and  to 
a  development  of  internal  communications  which  was  then 
undreamt  of.  And  the  devices  which  we  admire  in  the  Con 
stitution  might  prove  unworkable  among  a  people  less  pa 
triotic  and  self-reliant,  less  law-loving  and  law-abiding,  than 
are  the  English  of  America. 


THE  COOPERATION  OF  ENGLISH-SPEAKING 
PEOPLES  l 

ARTHUR  JAMES  BALFOUR 

MR.  PRESIDENT,  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  CHAMBER:  The 
noble  words  to  which  we  have  just  listened  struck,  I  am  well 
convinced,  a  sympathetic  chord  in  the  heart  of  every  one 
in  your  audience,  but  I  don't  think  that  in  all  the  multitude 
gathered  here  to-day  there  was  one  to  whom  they  went  more 
home  than  to  myself.  Mr.  President,  I  have  had  as  the 
dream  of  my  life  a  hope  that  before  I  died  the  union  between 
the  English-speaking,  freedom-loving  branches  of  the  hu 
man  race  should  be  drawn  far  closer  than  in  the  past,  and 
that  all  temporary  causes  of  difference  which  may  ever  have 
separated  two  great  peoples  would  be  seen  in  its  true  and 
just  proportion,  and  that  we  should  all  realize,  on  whatever 
side  of  the  Atlantic  fortune  had  place  us,  that  the  things 
wherein  we  have  differed  in  the  past  sink  into  absolute  in 
significance  compared  with  those  vital  agreements  which  at 
all  times,  but  never  at  such  a  time  as  the  present,  unite  us  in 
one  great  spiritual  whole. 

k  My  friend  Mr.  Choate,  in  a  speech  that  he  delivered 
yesterday  at  the  City  Hall,  told  his  audience  that  as  Am 
bassador  to  Great  Britain  he  had  been  in  close  official  rela 
tions  with  me  through  many  years,  and  that  during  all  of 
these  years  I  had  stood  solid  —  I  think  that  was  his  phrase 
—  for  American  friendship.  That  is  strictly  and  absolutely 
true,  and  the  feelings  that  I  have  this  great  opportunity  of 

1  Speech  made  before  the  New  York  Chamber  of  Commerce,  May  12, 
1917,  by  the  head  of  the  British  Mission  to  the  United  States. 


COOPERATION  OF  ENGLISH-SPEAKING  PEOPLES    323 

expressing  are  not  born,  believe  me,  of  the  necessities  of  the 
Great  War;  they  are  not  the  offspring  of  recent  events; 
they  are  based  upon  my  most  enduring  convictions,  con 
victions  of  which  I  cannot  remember  the  beginning,  which 
I  have  held  with  unalterable  fidelity  through  the  political 
life  which  is  now  a  long  life,  and  which,  I  am  quite  sure,  I 
shall  cherish  to  the  end. 

You,  Mr.  President,  have  referred  to  the  preparations 
that  were  made  only,  I  suppose,  a  little  more  than  two  years 
and  a  half  ago  —  though  how  long  those  two  and  a  half  years 
seem  to  all  of  us !  —  preparations  that  were  made  two  and  a 
hah0  years  ago  to  celebrate  the  one  hundred  years  of  peace 
between  our  two  countries.  I  ardently  supported  that  move 
ment,  and  yet  the  very  phrases  in  which  its  objects  were  ex 
pressed  show  how  inadequate  it  was  to  reach  the  real  truth 
and  heart  of  the  matter.  It  is  true  that  one  hundred  years 
have  passed,  and  many  hundreds  of  years,  I  hope,  were  to 
pass,  before  any  overt  act  of  war  should  divide  those  whom, 
as  you  said  in  your  final  words,  should  never  be  asunder. 
But,  after  all,  normal  and  official  peace  is  but  a  small  thing 
compared  with  that  intimate  mutual  comprehension  which 
ought  always  to  bind  the  branches  of  the  English-speaking 
peoples  together.  You  have  absorbed  in  your  midst  many 
admirable  citizens  drawn  from  all  parts  of  Europe,  whom 
American  institutions  and  American  ways  of  thought  have 
moulded  and  are  moulding  into  one  great  people.  I  rejoice 
to  think  it  should  be  so.  A  similar  process  on  a  smaller  scale 
is  going  on  in  the  self-governing  dominions  of  the  British 
Empire.  It  is  a  good  process;  it  is  a  noble  process.  Let  us 
never  forget  that  wherever  be  the  place  in  which  that  great 
and  beneficent  process  is  going  on,  whether  it  be  in  Canada, 
whether  it  be  in  Australia,  or  whether  on  the  largest  scale  of 
all  it  be  in  the  United  States  of  America,  the  spirit  which  the 
immigrant  absorbs  is  a  spirit  in  all  these  places  largely  due  to 


324    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

a  historic  past  in  which  your  forefathers  and  my  forefathers, 
gentlemen,  all  had  their  share. 

You  incidentally  mentioned,  Mr.  President,  that  this  very 
body  I  am  addressing  dates  the  origin  of  its  society  to  a 
charter,  I  think  you  said  of  1758.  Is  not  that  characteristic 
and  symbolic  of  what  happens  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic? 
We  strike  our  roots  into  a  distant  past.  We  have  known  how 
through  revolutions,  in  spite  of  revolutions,  sometimes  be 
cause  of  revolutions,  and  through  revolutions,  we  have  known 
how  to  weld  the  past  and  the  present  into  one  organic  whole, 
and  I  see  around  me  in  a  country  which  calls  itself  and  is,  in 
one  sense,  a  new  country  —  I  everywhere  see  signs  of  these 
roots  which  draw  their  nourishment  and  their  strength  from 
epochs  far  removed  from  us,  and  I  feel  when  I  talk  to  those 
who  are  born  and  bred  under  the  American  flag,  who  have 
absorbed  all  their  political  ideas  from  American  institutions 
—  I  feel,  and  I  think  I  speak  for  my  friends  here  that  they 
also  feel  —  I  feel  that  I  am  speaking  to  those  brought  up,  as 
it  were,  under  one  influence,  in  one  house,  under  one  set  of 
educational  conditions.  I  require  no  explanations  of  what 
they  think,  and  I  am  required  to  give  no  explanations  of 
what  I  think,  because  our  views  of  great  questions  seem  to 
be  shared;  born,  as  it  were,  of  common  knowledge  which  we 
know  instinctively,  and  which  we  do  not  require  explicitly 
to  expound  or  to  define. 

This  is  a  great  heritage  to  have  in  common,  and  I  think, 
nay,  I  am  sure,  that  you,  Mr.  President,  struck  a  true  note 
when  you  told  us  that  all  the  sentiments  which  I  have  im 
perfectly  tried  to  express  this  afternoon  will  receive  a  double 
significance,  and  infinitely  increased  significance  from  the 
fact  that  we  are  now  not  merely  sharing  a  common  political 
ideal  in  some  speculative  fashion,  but  that  all  of  us  are  com 
mitted  to  sacrificing  everything  that  we  hold  most  dear  to 
carry  these  ideals  into  practical  execution. 


COOPERATION  OF  ENGLISH-SPEAKING  PEOPLES    32J 

There  will  be  a  bond  of  union  between  our  peoples  which 
nothing  will  ever  be  able  to  shake,  and  which  I  believe  to  be 
the  securest  guarantee  for  the  future  of  the  world,  for  the 
future  peace  and  freedom  of  the  world. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  already  detained  you  too  long,  but 
there  was  one  word  which  fell  from  you  toward  the  end  of 
your  speech  upon  post-war  problems  and  you  indicated 
your  view  —  a  view  which  I  personally  entirely  share  —  that 
when  this  tremendous  conflict  has  drawn  to  its  appointed 
close,  and  when,  as  I  believe,  victory  shall  have  crowned  our 
joint  efforts,  there  will  arise  not  merely  between  nations,  but 
within  nations,  a  series  of  problems  which  will  tax  all  our 
statesmanship  to  deal  with.  I  look  forward  to  that  time, 
not,  indeed,  wholly  without  anxiety,  but  in  the  main  with 
hope  and  with  confidence;  and  one  of  the  reasons  for  that 
hope  and  one  of  the  foundations  of  that  confidence  is  to  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  your  nation  and  my  nation  will  have 
so  much  to  do  with  the  settlement  of  the  questions.  I  do  not 
think  anybody  will  accuse  me  of  being  insensible  to  the  gen 
ius  and  to  the  accomplishments  of  other  nations.  I  am  one 
of  those  who  believe  that  only  in  the  multitude  of  different 
forms  of  culture  can  the  completed  movement  of  progress 
have  all  the  variety  in  unity  of  which  it  is  capable;  and, 
while  I  admire  other  cultures,  and  while  I  recognize  how 
absolutely  all-important  they  are  to  the  future  of  mankind, 
I  do  think  that  among  the  English-speaking  peoples  is  es 
pecially  and  peculiarly  to  be  found  a  certain  political  mod 
eration  in  all  classes,  which  gives  one  the  surest  hope  of 
dealing  in  a  reasonable  progressive  spirit  with  social  and 
political  difficulties .  And  without  that  reasonable  modera 
tion  interchanges  are  violent  also,  and  the  smooth  advance  of 
humanity  is  seriously  interfered  with.  I  believe  that  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  I  hope  on  the  other  side  of  the  At 
lantic,  if  and  when  these  great  problems  have  actively  to  be 


326    FOREIGN  OPINION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

dealt  with,  it  will  not  be  beyond  the  reach  of  your  states 
manship  or  of  our  own,  to  deal  with  them  in  such  a  manner 
that  we  cannot  merely  look  back  upon  this  great  war  as  the 
beginning  of  a  time  of  improved  international  relations,  of 
settled  peace,  of  deliberate  refusal  to  pour  out  oceans  of 
blood  to  satisfy  some  notion  of  domination;  but  that  in  ad 
dition  to  those  blessings  the  war  may  prove  to  be  the  begin 
ning  of  a  revivified  civilization,  which  will  be  felt  in  all  de 
partments  of  human  activity,  which  will  not  merely  touch 
the  material  but  also  the  spiritual  side  of  mankind,  and 
which  will  make  the  second  decade  of  the  twentieth  century 
memorable  in  the  history  of  mankind. 


14  DAY  USE 

"RN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 


booksare  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

/     TffNov590^~ 


LD  21A-50m-4,'59 
(Al724slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YC1305S5 


TlffV 


•' 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


